t\x«  ^ 


SAe/f. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BT  1101  .C86  1878 

ISel"®^^'"'  1805- 

Theological  lectures 


V 


V 


\ 


t 


s 

N. 


r  ■ 


# 


>  • 


4 


L<4Li 


I 


V 


n 


T 


•I  »,'■ 


> 

.  1 


.  M 


» 


\ 


»a; 


\ 

\ 


I 


. .  M 

\ 


.4 


,  yr  ' 


TA' 


r 


I 


/  *  y 

’  I*  ^ 


i'-. 


4 


p' 

O. 


■  :"■  •  ■.■•••.  / 

)  ■  -  '  ' 


1 . 


t  '  *  ■  •  i  • 

'  .  <  ..*  •.  •  -  ^  r 

L-..'  ••-^-  .  .  ^ 


'  V 


r 


r 


> 

•I' 


‘X 


-S' 


i: 


r 


\ 


>* 


-  / 


.  i. 


I 


I 


4 


* 


\ 


V. 


✓ 


,  • 


THEOLOGICAL  LECTURES. 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


'V 


https://archive.org/details/theologicallectuOOcunn_0 


THEOLOGICAL  LECTURES 


ON  SUBJECTS  CONNECTED  WITH 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY,  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY, 
THE  CANON  AND  INSPIRATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


BY  THE  LATE 


WILLIAM  CUNNINGHAM,  D.D., 

PRINCIPAL  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY,  NEW  COLLEGE,  EDINBURGH. 


NEW  YORK: 

ROBERT  CARTER  AND  BROTHERS,  530  BROADWAY. 


MDCCCLXXVIII. 


EDINBURGH  :  PRINTED  BY  JOHN  GREIG  AND  SON. 


PREFACE. 


Dr  Cunningham  on  his  deathbed  committed  his  Manu¬ 
scripts  to  his  colleagues.  Dr  James  Buchanan  and  Dr 
Bannerman,  leaving  it  to  their  discretion  to  publish  such 
of  them  as  they  might  consider  likely  to  contribute  to 
the  edification  of  the  Church.  In  the  exercise  of  this 
discretion,  they  published  four  volumes  from  his  MSS., 
and  reprinted  in  one  volume  articles  which  had  been 
previously  published  in  Magazines  and  Reviews,  especially 
in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review,  of  which 
Dr  Cunningham  had  for  some  years  been  Editor.  They 
did  not  consider  it  expedient  to  publish  more  at  that 
time  ;  but  they  seem  to  have  contemplated  it  as  probable 
that  they  might  resume  at  some  future  time  consideration 
of  the  expediency  of  publishing  others  of  his  works.  But 
neither  of  them  long  survived  their  beloved  Principal. 
Mrs  Cunningham  was  very  desirous  that  a  certain  course 
of  Lectures  should  be  published,  because  she  was  aware 
that  her  husband  had  bestowed  much  care  and  labour 


VI 


PREFACE. 


upon  their  composition  and  revision^  and  that  he  had 
attached  a  special  value  to  them  as  the  first-fruits  of  his 
professorial  labours.  This  desire  was  ripened  into  a  resolu¬ 
tion^  by  the  receipt  of  a  requisition  which  was  addressed 
to  her  by  a  large  number  of  ministers^  in  whose  minds 
that  particular  course  of  Lectures  was  associated  with 
their  first  introduction  to  their  revered  teacher^  and 
their  first  entrance  into  theological  studies.  That  requi- 
sition_,  with  the  signatures  attached  to  it^  is  appended. 

At  Mrs  Cunningham’s  request^  I  undertook  to  super¬ 
vise  the  printing  of  the  work^  Dr  Goold  being  associated 
with  me  in  the  duty,  on  the  understanding  that  I  should 
be  answerable  for  the  accurate  reproduction  of  the 
manuscript,  and  that  he  should  share  with  me  the 
responsibility  of  making  any  slight  alteration  that 
might  be  deemed  necessary.  I  have  now  to  state 
what  alterations  have  actually  been  made  under  that 
joint  responsibility  : — 

1.  A  Lecture  has  been  altogether  omitted.  Lecture 
XLVIII.  was  on  the  subject  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of 
a  dead  language  by  means  of  grammars  and  lexicons. 
There  was  nothing  in  it  of  a  distinctively  theological 
character,  and  it  was  thought  better  to  omit  it.  Accord¬ 
ingly  the  Lectures  which  in  this  volume  appear  as  Nos. 
XLVIII.,  XLIX.,  L.,  and  LI.,  are  in  the  original 
XLIX.,  L.,  LI.,  and  LII. 

2.  A  few  sentences — not  more,  I  think,  than  three  or 


PREFACE. 


Vll 


four  in  all — have  been  omitted,  because  they  alluded  to 
matters  of  local  and  temporary  interest  ;  to  the  fact  that 
the  Lectures  were  delivered  in  the  first  year  of  their 
author  s  Professorship^  and  that  that  was  the  first  year  of 
the  separate  existence  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 

3.  In  order  to  keep  the  work  within  the  ordinary 
dimensions  of  an  8vo  volume^  several  long  extracts  from 
easily  accessible  books  have  been  omitted,  but  distinct 
references  have  been  given  to  the  passages  extracted. 

An  objection  will  probably  be  made  to  the  publication 

of  this  work  so  long  after  its  composition  ;  especially 
since  in  the  interval  many  objections  have  been  taken 

to  the  doctrines  which  it  defends,  which  could  not 
have  been  known  to  its  author.  It  is  quite  true 
that  if  Dr  Cunningham  had  been  alive  now,  and 
had  been  writing  on  the  same  subjects,  his  manner 
of  treating  them  would  have  been  somewdiat  different 
from  that  in  which  he  treated  them  five- and- thirty  years 
ago.  But  in  this  work  he  has  so  established  positive 
truth,  and  so  comprehensively  dealt  with  the  principles 
of  all  objections  that  can  possibly  be  brought  against  it, 
that  the  defences  he  offers  are  in  great  measure  applicable 
to  all  the  forms  which  these  objections  may  assume  from 
time  to  time.  Euclid’s  Elements,  and  Bacon’s  Novum 
Organum,  and  Butler  s  Analogy  are  never  out  of  date, 
and  I  venture  to  think  that  the  same  remark  will  prove 
to  be  applicable  to  Cunningham’s  Lectures, 


Vlll 


PllEFACE. 


The  student  will  be  disappointed  if  he  takes  up  this 
volume  with  the  expectation  of  finding  in  it  a  treatise  on 
Natural  Theology  or  the  Evidences  of  Christianity.  It 
is  rather  a  book  that  may  be  profitably  studied  along 
with  standard  works  on  these  subjects.  It  will  be  found 
to  contain  valuable  disquisitions  as  to  the  state  of  the 
question/’  and  the  precise  bearing  and  argumentative 
value  of  the  various  topics  discussed  in  such  wwks. 

A  considerable  portion  of  the  work  consists  in  an 
exposition  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith.  But  this  will  not  in  any  degree  lessen 
its  value  to  students  who  have  not  the  same  relation  to 
that  Confession  that  professors  and  ministers  and  theo¬ 
logical  students  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  have. 

Thomas  Smith. 

Edinburgh,  10th  Jane  1S7S. 


/ 


PREFACE, 


IX 


EEQUISITION 


To  Mrs  Cunningham, 

17  Salisbury  Road,  Edinburgh. 

17 til  February  1S77. 

Dear  Madam, — We,  who  were  Students  under  your  revered  husband, 
Principal  Cunningham,  remember  the  admirable  Course  of  Lectures 
he  delivered,  but  only  for  two  or  three  Sessions,  to  the  Students  of  the 
first  year  in  the  Divinity  Classes.  They  embrace  the  subjects  not  only 
of  Natural  Religion  and  the  Christian  Evidences,  but  also  the  Divine 
Origin  and  Authority  of  the  Bible,  the  Canon,  the  Inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Criticism  of  the  Text,  and  such  cognate 
subjects  as  are  of  importance  and  are  debated  in  our  day.  They  have 
not  yet  been  published,  and  we  earnestly  beg  of  you  to  give  them  to 
the  public,  being  confident  they  will  fully  sustain  the  high  reputation  of 
our  beloved  teacher,  and  that  by  the  blessing  of  God  their  publication 
will  be  of  essential  service  to  the  cause  of  Christ  and  of  the  Bible. 


We  are, 

Dear  Madam, 

«  ' 

With  much  respect, 

Your  very  obedient  Servants, 


JOHN  C.  MACPHAIL,  Kilmuir,  Skye. 
D.  HENDERSON,  Rockferry,  Cheshire. 
JAMES  KIPPEN,  M.A.,  Arrochar. 
JAMES  ROBERTSON,  Cray. 

ROBERT  STEVENSON,  Aberiiethy. 
GEORGE  BAIN,  Chapel  of  Garioch. 
WILLIAM  SINCLAIR,  Plockton. 


FINLAY  MACPHERSON,  Larberfc. 
JAMES  GIBSON,  Kirkpatrick-Durham. 
DUNCAN  M‘LAREN,  Dunning. 

ALEX.  B.  CAMPBELL,  Markinch. 
ALEXANDER  FORBES,  Drumblade. 
ROBERT  BLACK,  M. A.,  Kilsyth. 
LIALCOLM  MTNTYRE,  Monikie. 


X 


PREFACE. 


JAMES  B.  IRVINE,  Sfcrathkinnes. 
RALPH  a  SMITH,  Glasgow. 

PETER  RICHARDSON,  M.A.,  Dailly. 
GEORGE  WILSON,  Glenluce. 

WM.  BALFOUR,  Holyrood,  Edinburgh. 
MURDOCH  MACDONALD,  Logie-Easter. 
WILLIAM  LIVINGSTONE,  Kirriemuir. 
CHARLES  ROSS,  Tobermory. 

ALEX.  THOMSON,  Millerston,  Glasgow. 
ANDW.  COURT,  Tweedmouth,  Berwick. 
ALEX.  FRASER,  Coll. 

THOMAS  GARDINER,  Old  Aberdeen. 
ANDREW  INGLIS,  Dundee. 


JAMES  SIME,  M.A.,  Craigmount  House. 
JOHN  ROBERTSON,  Gatehouse. 

JOHN  STEWART,  Pitlochrie. 
DUNCAN  TURNER,  Tealing. 

JAMES  KESSEN,  Bathgate. 

ALEX.  LUKE,  Uphall. 

JAMES  HUTTON,  Closeburn. 
WILLIAM  T.  KER,  Deskford. 

JAMES  FETTES,  Douglas,  Isle  of  Man. 
DAVID  WILSON,  Renfrew. 

ALEX.  DAVIDSON,  A.M.,  Harris. 

J.  B.  JOHNSTON,  late  of  Wolflee. 


COJ^TENTS. 

PAGE 

I.  INTRODUCTORY . 1 

II.  DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT . 23 

I 

III.  DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT . 36 

IV.  DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT— ITS  EXTENT . 49 

V.  PRAYER,  MEDITATION,  AND  TEMPTATION . 63 

VI.  PRAYER,  MEDITATION,  AND  TEMPTATION . 75 

VII.  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE-THE  SABBATH— PRIVATE  MEETINGS  .  .  90 

VIII.  METHOD  OF  THE  COURSE . 101 

IX.  INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY . 114 

X.  NATURAL  THEOLOGY,  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRIS¬ 
TIANITY  . 124 

XI.  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRIS¬ 
TIANITY  . 138 

XII.  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  EVIDENCE  -  MODE  OF  APPROACHING  THE 
SUBJECT— GENUINENESS,  AUTHENTICITY,  OR  GENERAL  CREDI¬ 
BILITY-NECESSITY  OF  SPECIAL  EVIDENCE  FOR  SPECIAL  CLAIMS 
TWOFOLD  ..........  161 


XU 


CONTENTS. 


XIII.  MIRACLES— HUME’S  ARGUMENT . 

XIV.  EVIDENCE  OF  MIRACLES  STILL  SATISFACTORY,  JUST  AS  IF  WE  HAD 

WITNESSED  THEM  —  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  MIRACLES  AND 
DOCTRINE— PROPHECY— CONCLUSION  OF  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCES  . 

XV.  INTERNAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  GENERAL  TRUTH  OF  CHRISTIANITV  . 

XVI.  EXPERLVIENTAL  EVIDENCES— CLASSIFICATION  OF  EVIDENCES  IN 
GENERAL— ANIMADVERSIONS  UPON  DR  CHALMERS’S  STATEMENTS 
ON  THIS  POINT . 

XVII.  LITERARY  HISTORY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES— FATHERS— VIVES, 
MORNAY,  GROTIUS,  HUET,  BAXTER,  OWEN,  STILLINGFLEET 

XVIII.  SKETCH  OF  LITERARY  HISTORY  CONTINUED— LESLIE,  JENKINS— 
DEISTICAL  CONTROVERSY— LELAND,  COLLINS,  BUTLER,  &c. 

XIX.  POPULAR  INFIDELITY  USUALLY  BASED  UPON  PERVERTING  PARTI¬ 

CULAR  STATEMENTS  OF  SCRIPTURE-FRENCH  INFIDELITY— VOL¬ 
TAIRE,  FINDLAY,  PAINE,  PALE  Y— GERMAN  INFIDELITY  AND 
RATIONALISM . 

XX.  GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  ADVICES  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE 

STUDY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES . 

XXL  DIVINE  ORIGIN  AND  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  SCRIPTURE- 
EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  . 

XXII.  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE,  IN  COMMENTARY  UPON  CONFESSION,  CHAP.  1. 

SEC.  5 . 

XXIII.  DIFFERENT  DOCTRINES  AS  TO  THE  DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SCRIP¬ 
TURES,  OR  THE  AMOUNT  OF  DIVINE  AGENCY  IN  THE  PRODUCTION 
OF  THEM- PRINCIPAL  AUTHORS . 

XXIV.  DIFFICULTIES  IN  GENERAL— RATIONAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  EVIDENCE- 
TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SPIRIT— ROMISH  SCEPTICISM 


PAGE 

163 

175 

188 

201 

216 

230 

243 

256 

269 

282 

294 

307 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

PAGE 

XXV.  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SPIRIT,  FOLLOWING  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH  320 

XX VI.  PRINCIPLES  AND  ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  REFORMERS  ON  THE  TESTI¬ 
MONY  OF  THE  SPIRIT-BAXTER  AND  HALYBURTON  .  .  .331 

XXVH.  PLENARY  VERBAL  INSPIRATION:  ITS  GENERAL  NATURE,  IMPORT, 

AND  GROUNDS . 343 

XXVIII.  NATURE  OF  PLENARY  INSPIRATION-EXXMINATION  OF  2  TIM.  HI.  16.  354 

XXIX.  VERBAL  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— MODE  OF  QUOTING 

OLD  TESTAMENT-OBJECTIONS . .365 

XXX.  MAIN  OBJECTION  FROM  VERBAL  DIFFERENCES  IN  REPORTS  OF  DIS¬ 
COURSES- CARSON  . 380 

XXXI.  OBJECTIONS  TO  PLENARY  VERBAL  INSPIRATION  FROM  1  COR.  VIL  — 

DR  HILL . 389 

XXXH.  INSPIRATION  (CONCLUDED) . 401 

XXXIH.  CANON-  APOCRYPHA  (ORDER  WITH  RELATION  TO  INSPIRATION)  .  412 

XXXIV.  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT . 424 

XXXV.  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT . 436 

t 

XXXVI.  RULE  OF  FAITH  —  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  —  POPERY  AND  TRAC- 

TARIANISM . 447 

XXXVII.  PERFECTION  AND  SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE :  SCRIPTURAL 

EVIDENCE  FOR  IT,  POPISH  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  IT  .  .  459 

XXXVIH.  TRADITION  :  ITS  ALLEGED  NECESSITY  PROVED  BY  INSTANCES  .  470 

XXXIX.  TRADITION:  POSITIVE  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  IT  .  .  .  .481 

XL.  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  SUFFICIENCY  OF  SCRIPTURE  STATED  IN  CON¬ 
FESSION-PERSPICUITY  OF  SCRIPTURE . 492 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


XLI.  ALLEGED  OBSCURITY  OF  SCRIPTURE-NECESSITY  OF  A  LIVING  INTER¬ 
PRETER-FITNESS  OF  SCRIPTURE  TO  BE  A  RULE  OF  FAITH 

XLII.  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH-TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS 

XLIH.  GENERAL  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  TEXT  OF  SCRIPTURE— CON¬ 
FESSION,  CPIAP.  1.  SEC.  8 . 

XLIV.  VARIOUS  READINGS . ,  . 

XLV.  NATURE,  DIFFICULTIES,  AND  NECESSITY  OF  SEARCHING  THE 
SCRIPTURES . 

XLVI.  AGENCY  OF  THE  SPIRIT- PRAYER . 

XLVH.  RIGHT  OF  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT,  AND  NECESSITY  OF  PERSONAL  STUDY 
OF  SCRIPTURE . 

XLVITI.  CONFESSION,  CHAP.  I.  SEC.  9— SCRIPTURE  ITS  OWN  INTERPRETER- 
DOUBLE  SENSE-TYPES -GRAMMATICAL  AND  HISTORICAL  SENSE 

XLIX.  CONTEXT- PARALLEL  PASSAGES— ANALOGY  OF  FAITH  . 

L.  CONFESSION,  CHAP.  1.  SEC.  10.— JUDGE  OF  CONTROVERSY 


PAGE 

504 

516 

525 

538 

551 

558 

569 

580 

591 

602 


LI.  CONCLUSION  . 


613 


LECTURE  1. 


INTRODUCTOKY. 


YOU  have  arrived  at  an  important  era  in  your  history,  an  occasion 
when  you  are  specially  called  upon  to  search  and  try  your  ways, 
to  realise  your  responsibility  to  God,  your  entire  dependence  upon 
the  Author  of  every  good  and  perfect  gift,  to  look  steadily  and 
deliberately  both  behind  you  and  before  you,  and  to  adopt  resolu¬ 
tions  suited  to  your  present  circumstances,  and  fitted  to  bear 
extensively  and  permanently  upon  your  future  studies  and  labours. 
Your  studies  have  hitherto  been  directed  principally  to  the 
improvement  of  your  intellectual  powers,  and  the  acquisition  of 
secular  knowledge.  They  are  now  to  be  directed  to  the  acquisition 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  revealed  will.  Hitherto, 
probably,  your  leading  and  immediate  motives  in  the  prosecution 
of  your  studies  have  been  the  mere  pleasure  of  intellectual  exertion 
and  of  the  acquisition  of  knowledge,  or,  perhaps,  the  desire  of 
distinction,  or  a  wish  to  make  a  creditable  preparation  for  what 
you  had  chosen  as  your  future  profession  in  life.  Now  it  may  be 
expected  that  you  have  taken  a  closer  and  fuller  view  of  the  office 
of  the  Christian  ministry  to  which  you  have  professedly  devoted 
yourselves,  and  of  the  purposes  it  was  designed  to  serve,  and  that 
you  feel  that  it  is  with  God  you  have  to  do  in  this  matter,  that  it 
is  with  him  you  are  to  Hold  communion,  and  to  him  you  are  to 
have  respect  in  all  your  studies  and  preparations  connected  with 
entering  upon  his  more  immediate  service.  You  have  ere  this 
time,  I  trust,  been  led  to  some  serious  reflection  upon  the  end  for 
which  you  were  created,  and  the  objects  to  which  your  powers  and 
faculties  ought  to  be  devoted.  You  have  been  already  giving 
some  measure  of  serious  and  humble  attention  to  the  study  of  the 

A 


2 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


word  of  God,  and  have  been  enabled  to  discern  and  apprehend 
the  views  unfolded  there  of  your  relation  to  God  as  his  creatures, 
his  subjects,  and  the  transgressors  of  his  law,  and  of  the  scheme  of 
mercy  which  God  devised  and  executed  by  sending  his  Son  into 
the  world  to  suffer  and  die  for  us.  Through  the  knowledge  and 
belief  of  these  truths,  you  have  been  led,  I  trust,  to  flee  for  refuge 
to  the  hope  set  before  you,  to  embrace  Christ  as  all  your  salvation 
and  all  your  desire.  Under  the  influence  of  these  views,  and 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  you  have  not  only  received 
Christ  as  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  for  your  own  personal 
salvation,  but  you  have  resolved  to  devote  your  lives  to  the  service 
of  God  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  to  the  great  object  of  making  God 
and  Christ  and  salvation  known  to  your  fellow-men.  Animated 
by  this  desire,  and  determined  by  God’s  grace  to  carry  this 
resolution  into  effect,  you  have  come  to  this  place  in  order  that 
you  may  acquire  the  necessary  knowledge,  and  make  other  neces¬ 
sary  preparations  for  entering  upon  this  important  work.  This  is 
the  position  you  now  occupy ;  these,  I  trust,  are  the  motives  by 
which  you  are  animated,  and  the  objects  on  which  your  desires  are 
set ;  and  if  so,  it  may  be  reasonably  expected  that  you  will  engage 
in  the  studies  that  now  lie  before  you  with  an  activity  and  a  zeal, 
a  seriousness  and  sense  of  responsibility,  and  at  the  same  time 
with  a  cheerfulness  and  alacrity,  which  you  have  never  known 
before.  The  studies  in  which  you  have  hitherto  been  engaged 
have,  indeed,  been  appointed  and  arranged  with  a  view  to  your 
preparation  for  the  study  of  theology  and  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
the  church  having  wisely  determined  that,  in  the  actual  circum¬ 
stances  in  which  we  are  placed,  the  general  and  ordinary  rule 
should  be,  that  men  be  not  admitted  to  the  ministry  without  some 
acquaintance  with  all , those  departments  of  knowledge  to  which 
your  attention  has  been  hitherto  directed.  It  is  right  and  proper 
that  men  should  come  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  with  their 
intellectual  powers  brought  to  maturity,  and  fully  and  carefully 
cultivated ;  and  the  studies  in  which  you  have  been  engaged  are 
admirably  adapted  to  promote  this  object.  There  are  some  branches 
of  literature  and  science  an  acquaintance  with  which  affords 
facilities  for  attaining  a  knowledge  of  theology,  and  which  are 
therefore  sometimes  called  the  of  theological  science. 

To  these  your  attention  has  been  directed,  and  you  are  all,  I  trust. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


3 


possessed  of  a  creditable  acquaintance  with  them.  The  two  great 
objects  of  education  are  the  cultivation  and  improvement  of  the 
mental  powers,  and  the  positive  acquisition  of  useful  knowledge. 
These  two  things  are  in  themselves  distinct  from  each  other  ; 
and  it  is  easy  to  conceive  that  they  might  in  fact  be  in  some 
measure  separated — i.  e.  that  there  might  be  certain  exercises 
fitted  to  promote  mental  improvement  without  conveying  much 
useful  information  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  much  useful 
information  might  be  communicated  which  was  not  fitted  propor¬ 
tionately  and  by  comparison  to  expand  and  strengthen  the  mental 
powers.  But  though  these  two  things  may  be  to  some  extent 
separated,  they  may  be,  and  commonly  are,  united ;  and  the  great 
problem  to  be  solved  in  an  investigation  of  the  principles  of 
education  is  just  how  this  union  may  be  most  completely  effected 
— in  other  words,  how  education  may  be  so  conducted  as  to  secure 
most  fully  by  one  and  the  same  process  the  most  thorough  improve¬ 
ment  of  the  mental  faculties,  and  the  communication  of  the  largest 
amount  of  useful  knowledge.  The  studies  in  which  you  have 
been  hitherto  engaged  have  been  arranged  with  a  view  to  both 
these  objects,  and  it  is  expected  that  you  are  now  prepared  to 
enter  upon  the  study  of  theology  with  your  mental  powers  matured 
and  invigorated  by  culture  and  exercise,  and  in  the  possession  of  a 
large  amount  of  useful  knowledge — of  knowledge  that  may  be 
useful  to  you  generally  as  members  of  society  who  have  chosen 
what  is  commonly  called  a  learned  profession,  and  that  may  be 
useful  to  you  more  particularly  in  the  prosecution  of  your  profes¬ 
sional  studies.  There  is  perhaps  no  study  which  at  a  certain 
period  of  life  is  more  useful  in  calling  into  exercise  and  improving 
the  mental  powers  than  the  study  of  languages,  especially  of  those 
languages  which  are  full  and  copious,  and  have  been  carried  to  a 
high  pitch  of  cultivation.  And  in  the  attention  which  you  have 
given  to  the  classical  languages  of  Greece  and  Eome,  you  are 
expected  to  have  reaped  this  advantage,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
have  also  derived  from  the  study  and  the  researches  to  which  it 
necessarily  led  these  two  important  additional  benefits — first,  that 
your  taste  has  been  improved  and  refined  by  familiarity  with  the 
most  splendid  productions  of  genius,  and  with  the  most  perfect 
models  of  composition  ;  and  second,  that  you  have  acquired  a  large 
portion  of  information  with  respect  to  the  history,  geography,  and 


4 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


chronology,  the  manners  and  customs,  the  laws  and  institutions  of 
the  nations  of  antiquity,  and  are  fully  aware  of  the  low  state  of 
religion  and  morality  which  characterised  even  those  nations  which 
had  made  the  greatest  progress  in  literature,  science,  and  the  arts, 
but  which  had  not  been  favoured  with  a  supernatural  and  written 
revelation  of  God’s  will. 

You  have  been  engaged  also  in  the  study  of  mathematics,  a 
science  of  pure  demonstration,  calling  into  exercise,  and,  of 
course,  improving  other  faculties  than  those  developed  in  the 
study  of  languages,  opening  up  to  you  new  and  interesting  views 
of  the  nature  of  truth  and  evidence,  of  the  grounds  and  certainty 
of  human  knowledge,  accustoming  you  to  a  careful  investigation 
of  every  successive  step  in  your  processes  of  thought  and  reasoning, 
and  by  the  positive  information  which  it  communicates,  paving 
the  way  for  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the  works  of  creation.  Your 
attention  has  been  directed  to  the  material  universe,  the  work  of 
God’s  hands,  and  you  have  found  a  profitable  exercise  for  your 
faculties,  and  gained  much  useful  information  in  examining  the 
actual  phenomena  of  nature,  in  arranging  and  classifying  them, 
and  in  investigating  the  laws  by  which  they  are  governed.  You 
have  thus  seen  how  the  heavens  declare  God’s  glory,  and  how  the 
firmament  sheweth  forth  his  handiwork ;  how  all  his  works,  great 
and  small,  praise  him,  and  to  some  extent  manifest  His  power,  and 
wisdom,  and  goodness. 

But  perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  important  department  of  all 
the  studies  in  which  you  have  hitherto  been  engaged,  is  that  which 
concerns  not  the  classic  writers  of  antiquity,  not  the  abstract  rela¬ 
tions  of  form  and  numbers,  not  the  material  and  irrational  creation, 
but  man  himself,  made  originally  in  the  image  of  God,  still  capable 
of  being  restored  to  that  image,  and  of  worshipping,  serving,  and 
enjoying  God,  invested  with  dominion  over  the  works  of  creation, 
and  destined  not  to  perish  or  to  be  burned  up,  but  to  exist  for  ever. 
You  have  been  studying  man,  especially  in  that  respect  in  which 
he  is  distinguished  from  the  lower  animals,  the  possession  of  a 
rational  and  immortal  soul.  You  have  been  inquiring  into  his 
intellectual  and  moral  nature,  his  powers  and  capacities,  his  sus¬ 
ceptibilities  of  emotion,  the  appetites,  desires,  and  passions  by 
which  he  is  influenced.  And  your  inquiries  into  the  actual  consti¬ 
tution  of  man’s  intellectual  and  moral  nature  have  been,  or  should 


INTRODUCTORY. 


5 


have  been,  applied  to  two  great  practical  subjects,  viz.,  investi¬ 
gating  and  ascertaining  truth,  and  discovering  and  establishing 
duty.  In  the  investigation  of  man’s  intellectual  nature,  you  have 
been  called  upon  to  consider.  What  is  truth  ?  How  may  it  be 
ascertained  ?  How  may  man’s  faculties  be  most  successfully 
employed  in  the  investigation  of  it,  and  best  prepared  for  this 
work  ?  What  are  the  grounds  of  the  certainty  of  our  knowledge? 
and  what  are  the  different  sources  from  which  truth,  or  clear  and 
certain  knowledge,  may  be  derived  ?  And  in  the  examination  of 
man’s  moral  nature,  you  have  been  led  to  consider  by  what  law 
men  ought  to  form  their  character  and  regulate  their  conduct. 
What  is  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  the  great  Huler  and 
Lawgiver  of  the  world,  who  has  formed  their  mental  constitution 
both  in  its  intellectual  and  moral  departments  ?  What  provision 
has  he  made  in  our  constitution  for  guiding  us  to  the  knowledge 
and  practice  of  duty  and  the  attainment  of  happiness  ?  and  what 
may  be  learned  from  the  exercise  of-  our  faculties  upon  the  works 
of  creation  and  providence,  and  the  constitution  of  our  own 
nature,  as  to  the  character  and  moral  government  of  God,  the  rela¬ 
tion  in  which  we  stand  to  him,  the  service  we  ought  to  render  to 
him,  the  rule  by  which  our  conduct  ought  to  be  regulated,  and  the 
whole  course  we  ought  to  pursue,  that  we  may  attain  to  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  his  favour,  and  the  fullest  and  most  permanent  happiness 
of  which  we  are  capable  ? 

To  the  study  of  all  these  various  subjects  your  time  and  atten¬ 
tion  have  been  hitherto  devoted.  By  the  study  of  them  I  trust 
your  intellectual  powers  have  been  expanded  and  invigorated,  and 
much  useful  and  important  knowledge  has  been  acquired.  What¬ 
ever  measure  of  intellectual  strength  or  skill  you  may  have  attained, 
whatever  portion  of  useful  knowledge  you  may  possess,  you  are 
now  called  upon  to  bring  to  bear  upon  the  study  of  Christian 
theology,  or  of  the  word  of  God,  the  supernatural  revelation  which 
he  has  given  us  concerning  Himself,  and  concerning  our  duty  and 
destiny.  To  God  indeed  the  grand  object  of  knowledge,  the  great 
source  of  obligation,  the  bestower  of  all  happiness,  the  author  of 
every  good  and  perfect  gift,  your  attention  already  has  been  or 
should  have  been  directed  in  the  study  of  his  works,  and  especially 
in  the  study  of  man,  the  noblest  of  his  works.  God’s  works  should 
be  all  studied  with  a  reference  to  him  who  created  and  sustains 


6 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


them.  The  things  that  are  made  should  be  ever  contemplated  as 
having  been  made  and  regulated  for  the  purpose  of  making  known 
the  invisible  things  of  God,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead ; 
and  moral  philosophy,  when  taught  as  it  should  be,  unfolds  all 
that  can  be  known  of  God,  and  of  man’s  relation  to  him,  from  the 
light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  and 
especially  from  man’s  mental  constitution,  in  order  to  settle  aright 
the  nature,  ground,  and  requirements  of  duty,  in  so  far  as  these 
can  be  known  and  ascertained  without  an  immediate  and  super¬ 
natural  revelation.  But  you  are  now  to  enter  upon  the  study  of 
the  truth  concerning  God,  and  duty,  and  happiness,  as  unfolded  to 
us  in  the  written  revelation  which  God  inspired  by  his  Spirit,  and 
has  put  into  our  hands.  If  God  has  indeed,  in  addition  to  the  light 
of  nature  and  the  ordinary  exercise  of  their  faculties  upon  the 
objects  around  them,  given  to  men  a  supernatural  revelation  of  his 
will,  professing  to  communicate  to  them  fuller  and  clearer  views 
of  the  most  important  of  all  subjects  than  they  could  have  acquired 
in  any  other  way,  then  their  first  duty  is  to  examine  this  revela¬ 
tion,  and  to  learn  from  it  what  it  was  fitted  and  intended  to  teach, 
to  bring  all  their  powers  and  faculties,  and  all  the  information  they 
may  have  acquired,  to  bear,  if  needful,  upon  the  investigation  of 
its  meaning,  and  the  right  use  and  application  of  its  discoveries. 
And  this  is  in  substance  the  work  to  which  you  are  now  called. 
It  is  not  indeed  supposed  that  you  are  at  present  entirely  ignorant 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  the  views  which  are  there  unfolded 
concerning  God  and  duty,  salvation  and  eternity.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  it  is  assumed  that  you  have  given  some  attention  to  the 
study  of  God’s  word,  and  that  you  have  already  been  taught  by 
the  Spirit  through  the  word  the  leading  principles  of  God’s  oracles, 
and  been  taught  them  so  as  to  have  been  led  by  the  knowledge 
and  belief  of  them  to  choose  God  as  your  portion,  to  embrace 
Christ  as  your  Saviour,  and  to  devote  yourselves  to  his  service — 
and  if  so,  your  eyes  have  been  opened,  you  have  been  turned  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  are  now  advancing  on  your  way  to  Zion 
with  your  faces  turned  thitherwards. 

But  it  is  assumed,  also,  that  you  have  not  hitherto  given  a 
great  deal  of  attention  to  the  careful  and  exact  study  of  the  word 
of  God  in  the  original  languages,  that  you  have  not  yet  thought 
or  read  a  great  deal  about  the  principles  that  ought  to  guide  you 


INTRODUCTORY. 


7 


in  the  study  and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  that  you 
have  not  yet  spent  much  time  in  comparing  the  different  state¬ 
ments  of  God's  word  with  each  other,  and  trying  to  form  clear 
and  correct  conceptions  of  the  general  truths  which,  as  a  whole, 
it  teaches  upon  all  the  various  and  infinitely  important  subjects 
with  respect  to  which  it  gives  us  information.  It  is  assumed  that 
while  you  have  not  yet  had  time  to  give  much  attention  to  such 
exercises  as  these,  in  which  the  study  of  Christian  theology  essen¬ 
tially  consists,  neither  have  you  had  much  opportunity  of  making 
use,  for  the  attainment  of  the  ends  to  be  effected  by  these  exer¬ 
cises,  of  the  assistance  to  be  derived  in  this  work  from  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  labours  of  those  who  have  brought  the  largest  mea¬ 
sure  of  natural  talents,  acquired  learning,  and  spiritual  discernment, 
to  bear  upon  the  investigation  of  the  character,  meaning,  and 
,  contents  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  And  if  these  assumptions  are 
correct,  then  it  follows  that  you  do  not  yet  possess  that  full,  clear, 
and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  Christian  theology 
and  of  the  grounds  on  which  they  rest,  that  is  needful,  in  order 
to  explain  the  word  of  God  to  others,  or  to  assist  them  in  the 
explanation  and  application  of  it,  and  are  not  fully  qualified  to 
defend  even  what  you  have  rightly  learned  against  the  assaults 
of  adversaries ;  and  that,  on  both  these  grounds,  you  are  not  yet 
fully  prepared  for  entering  upon  the  office  of  teachers  of  religion 
or  of  ministers  of  the  gospel.  You  may  be,  I  trust  you  are, 
Christians,  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  you  are  not 
theologians.  You  may  have  been  made  wise  unto  your  own  sal¬ 
vation,  but  you  have  yet  a  great  deal  to  learn,  both  from  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  written  word,  and  also 
from  the  writings  of  men,  before  you  become  qualified  to  be 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament. 

A  distinction  has  been  often  made  between  religion  and  theology, 
which  has  a  real  foundation  in  fact  and  experience.  Both  words 
are  indeed  used  in  two  senses,  somewhat  different,  though  closely 
related  to  each  other.  Both  are  employed  subjectively  and  objec¬ 
tively — subjectively  as  descriptive  of  qualities  or  properties  of  a 
man,  or  as  the  old  theological  writers  are  accustomed  to  say,  “  habi¬ 
tus  homini  hserentes,”  by  the  possession  of  which  a  man  becomes 
respectively  a  religious  man  and  a  theologian  ;  and  objectively  as 
descriptive  of  a  system  of  opinions  and  sentiments  irrespective  of 


8 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


those  who  hold  them.  In  the  latter  sense  we  speak  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  and  of  Christian  theology,  and  when  thus  used  there 
is  scarcely  any  difference  in  meaning  between  them ;  they  both 
mean  that  system  of  truths  derived  from  the  word  of  God  which 
constitutes  Christianity.  It  is  when  they  are  used  subjectively 
that  the  difference  between  them  appears,  and  it  is  a  difference 
only  in  degree.  Religion,  as  descriptive  of  that  in  a  man  which 
entitles  him  to  be  called  religious,  is  a  real  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  leading  him  to  worship  and  to  serve  him ;  and  it  is  usually 
regarded  as  conveying  the  idea  that  the  man  of  whom  it  is  pre¬ 
dicated  has  so  much  knowledge  of  God,  and  knowledge  of  such  a 
practical  and  effective  kind,  as  to  produce  such  a  character  and 
conduct  as  affords  materials  for  cherishing  a  confident  hope  of  his 
ultimate  happiness. 

A  religious  man,  therefore,  is  practically  just  a  true  Christian, 
one  who  has  acquired  so  much  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  way 
of  salvation,  and  of  the  path  of  duty,  from  the  Christian  revelation, 
and  who  is  so  using  and  applying  this  knowledge,  as  that  there  is 
good  ground  to  believe  that  he  is  advancing  in  the  way  that 
leadeth  to  glory,  honour,  and  immortality,  and  that  he  will  ulti¬ 
mately  secure  eternal  life.  Theology,  used  subjectively,  as  descrip¬ 
tive  of  that  in  a  man  which  entitles  him  to  be  called  a  theologian, 
means  a  full  and  comprehensive  and  well-digested  knowledge  of 
God,  and  of  everything  needful  to  be  known,  in  order  to  worshipping 
and  serving  him  aright,  such  as  may  not  only  avail  for  the  regulation 
of  his  own  conduct,  and  the  securing  of  his  own  personal  happiness, 
but  may  qualify  him  for  becoming  a  teacher  or  instructor  of  others. 
And  in  accordance  with  this  view  of  its  meaning,  it  is  well  known 
that  when  we  apply  the  term  theologian  to  one  who  is  not  in  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  not  using  it  merely  as  a  common  designation 
of  a  particular  profession,  we  intend  to  convey  the  idea  that  he  is 
possessed  of  a  much  fuller  and  more  thorough  acquaintance  with 
religious  subjects  than  is  usually  exhibited  by  those  who  have 
not  studied  religion  professionally  ;  such  an  acquaintance  with  these 
subjects  as  that  he  would  be  fairly  entitled  to  speak  or  write  about 
them  for  the  instruction  or  information  of  others.  Theology  then 
used  subjectively,  and  distinguished  from  religion,  is  descriptive  of 
a  full,  comprehensive,  well-digested  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine 
things,  such  as  may  qualify  for  the  instruction  of  our  fellowmen. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


9 


The  words  theology  and  theologian  were  used  by  the  ancient  clas¬ 
sical  writers.  They  applied  the  word  theologian  both  to  the 
poets  who  had  given  the  fullest  accounts  of  their  gods,  and  to  the 
philosophers  who  had  most  fully  prosecuted  their  inquiries  into  the 
nature  of  God  and  of  man’s  relation  to  him.  The  words  theology 
and  theologian  do  not  occur  in  Scripture,  though  there  are  phrases 
which  are  virtually  synonymous  with  them,  and  which  naturally 
led  to  the  formation  and  use  of  such  words.  The  word  QioXoyog 
occurs  in  the  inscription  of  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  called  the 
Revelation  of  John  the  Divine,  but  from  the  way  in  which  this  word 
was  commonly  used  about  the  time  when  this  inscription  was 
probably  attached  to  it — for  the  time  is  not  certainly  known — 
the  word  was  in  all  likelihood  intended  to  be  descriptive  of  the 
fact  that  John  had  written  much  about  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour. 
In  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  a  theologian  usually  meant  one 
who  distinguished  himself  by  his  exertions  in  illustrating  and 
defending  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Logos,  a  limitation  in 
the  use  of  the  word  which  has  long  since  passed  away.  Its  meaning 
is  now  settled  as  descriptive  of  a  full,  thorough,  and  well-digested 
knowledge  of  God,  and  of  all  that  God  has  made  known  to  us. 

We  do  not  usually  apply  the  word  religion  to  a  man,  or  speak 
of  him  as  religious,  except  when  we  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that, 
so  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  knowledge  he  has  acquired  concerning 
God,  is  really  applied  in  the  way  of  leading  him  to  worship  God  and 
to  serve  him.  But  the  spectacle  has  been  so  often  presented  of 
men  who  had  acquired  a  large  measure  of  information  upon  sub¬ 
jects  connected  with  God  and  religion,  and  who  even  held  the 
office  of  public  religious  instructors,  but  who  gave  no  evidence  that 
they  were  really  living  under  the  practical  influence  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  which  they  preached,  discussed,  or  defended,  that  we  do  not 
so  generally  associate  with  the  common  use  of  the  words  theology 
and  theologians,  any  reference  to  the  personal  character  of  the 
individual,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  men  as  great  theo¬ 
logians,  even  when  there  may  be  abundant  ground  to  fear  that  they 
have  never  made  any  such  use  of  their  studies  in  theology,  or  of 
their  examination  of  the  word  of  God,  as  to  have  become  them¬ 
selves  wise  unto  salvation.  It  is  indeed  true  that  men  who  are 
still  walking  in  darkness,  led  captive  by  Satan  at  his  will,  may 
devote  much  time  to  the  examination  of  the  Scriptures  and  to  the 


10 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


reading  of  theological  works,  and  thus  in  a  certain  sense  acquire 
much  knowledge,  so  as  to  be  qualified  to  speak  and  write  learnedly 
upon  theological  subjects,  and  even  to  throw  some  light  upon  the 
exact  interpretation  of  some  Scriptural  statements.  But  men  who 
have  never  really  submitted  their  understandings  and  their  hearts  to 
the  influence  and  authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  divine  revelation,  and 
who  have  never  really  seen  God  as  he  has  made  himself  known 
in  his  word,  cannot  with  propriety  be  said  to  know  God  or  Chris¬ 
tian  theology,  and  are  not  properly  entitled  to  the  name  of  theo¬ 
logians.  It  is  eternal  life  to  know  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  he 
hath  sent,  and  therefore  men  who  are  putting  away  from  them  the 
eternal  life  which  is  offered  them,  cannot  be  properly  said  to  know 
God  or  the  Saviour.  The  apostle  lays  down  a  principle  upon  this 
subject  which  is  of  universal  application,  and  ought  never  to  be 
overlooked  or  forgotten,  when  he  says,  2  Cor.  ii.  14,  “  The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are 
foolishness  unto  him,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned.’^  We  know  that  even  the  spiritual  man — 
the  man  who  has  been  born  again  of  the  word  of  God,  through 
the  belief  of  the  truth,  receiveth  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
only  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  word ;  and  clearly  as  they  are 
set  forth  there,  no  one  can  receive  them  so  as  fully  to  know  and 
comprehend  them,  except  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  apostle’s  declaration  that  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  he 
cannot  know  them,  implies  that  no  man  in  his  natural  state,  with¬ 
out  the  renovation  of  his  nature  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit, 
really  knows  or  comprehends,  in  any  proper  sense,  the  leading  and 
most  important  declarations  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  If  it  be 
the  clear  doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  a  man  still  unconverted  cannot 
know  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  however  fully  and  plainly  they  are 
stated  in  the  word  of  God,  then  by  whatever  name  the  information 
he  may  have  acquired  concerning  scriptural  and  theological  sub¬ 
jects  may  be  designated,  he  ought  not  to  be  called  a  theologian. 

And  all  who  have  resolved  to  devote  themselves  to  theological 
study  are  called  upon  to  give  their  most  serious  attention  to  this 
most  momentous  question,  whether  they  have  been  brought  into 
that  condition  in  which  alone  they  can  acquire  any  real  knowledge 
ot  the  things  of  the  Spirit  as  revealed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures ; 


INTRODUCTORY. 


11 


whether  the  grand  obstacle  which  the  natural  darkness  of  their 
understandings  and  the  natural  ungodliness  of  their  hearts  inter¬ 
pose  in  the  way  of  their  making  any  real  progress  in  theology,  or 
in  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things,  has  yet  been  taken 
out  of  the  way.  This  is  the  first  and  fundamental  qualification 
for  the  profitable  study  of  theology,  and  the  want  of  it  nothing 
else  whatever  can  supply.  In  accordance  with  these  views,  so 
plainly  based  upon  Scripture,  some  distinguished  writers  have 
introduced  into  their  definitions  of  theology  and  of  a  theologian, 
the  idea  that  a  theologian,  one  really  deserving  of  the  name, 
must  be  a  converted  man,  and  that  theology,  or  a  real  knowledge 
of  God  and  of  divine  things,  can  be  predicated  only  of  a  man 
whose  nature  has  been  renewed,  and  whose  understanding  has 
been  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Among  the  definitions 
which  have  been  given  of  these  words,  I  have  not  met  with  any 
one  that  seems  to  me,  upon  the  whole,  preferable  to  that 
given  by  Buddaeus,  a  celebrated  divine  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
all  whose  works  are  most  valuable,  as  he  was  eminently  distin¬ 
guished  by  a  remarkable  combination  of  piety  and  moderation, 
judgment  and  erudition.  He  defines  or  describes  them  in  this 
way  : — ‘‘  Qui  inter  Christianos  non  tan  turn  vera  fide  imbuti  sunt, 
sed  etiam  numinis  munere  earn  prae  reliquis  adepti  sunt  faculta- 
tem  ut  sacrae  doctrinae,  qua  Christiana  religio  constat,  capita  rite 
proponere,  explicare,  et  contra  dissentientium  insultus  defendere, 
aliosque  adeo  ad  veram  fidem  perducere,  aut  in  ea  confirmare, 
possint,  voce  recepta  theologi  vocari  solent.”  And  theology  itself — 
that,  the  possession  of  which  makes  a  man  a  theologian — he  defines 
to  be  “  Scientia  rerum  divinarum  homini  peccatori  ad  salutem  con- 
sequendam  cognitu  necessariarum,  prout  ex  scriptura  sacra  nobis 
constant,  cum’  facultate  eas  iterum  alios  docendi,  confirmandi 
atque  defendendi  conjuncta;”  and  this  knowledge  of  divine  things 
he  says,  must  be  true,  certain,  and  efficacious ;  and  after  fully  ex¬ 
plaining  these  definitions  or  descriptions,  he  concludes  again,  Ex 
dictis  consequitur  eum  qui  jure  et  merito  theologus  dici  potest 
non  alium  esse  quam  hominem  vera  fide  prseditum  seu  regenitum.’'^ 
Such  then  is  the  work  in  which  you  are  to  be  henceforth 
engaged.  You  are  supposed  to  have  been  led  already  so  far  to 
know  God  and  the  views  opened  up  in  his  word  as  to  have  resolved 
^  Instit.  Theol.  Dog.  Lib.,  I.  c.  L,  sect.  32-49,  pp.  51,  53,  55,  and  66. 


12 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


not  only  to  take  his  word  as  a  light  to  your  feet  and  a  lamp  to 
your  path,  that  you  may  be  guided  to  heaven,  but  to  devote  your¬ 
selves  to  the  promotion  of  the  spiritual  welfare  and  salvation  of 
your  fellow-men,  and  with  this  view,  to  be  intent  now  on  gaining 
that  full  and  intelligent  knowledge  of  God’s  revelation,  which  may 
fit  you  for  becoming  the  instructors  and  guides  of  others.  To 
ascertain  the  true  origin,  character,  and  authority  of  this  revelation, 
and  to  be  so  familiar  with  the  grounds  on  which  the  views  you 
hold  upon  these  points  rest,  that  you  may  be  able  to  defend  it 
against  adversaries,  and  press  it  upon  men’s  notice  and  study ; 
to  investigate  fully  and  carefully  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  so  as 
to  be  able  to  expound  and  enforce  its  contents,  and  bring  them  to 
bear  most  successfully  upon  men  for  their  conversion  and  growth 
in  knowledge  and  in  grace,  is  henceforth  to  be  your  principal 
occupation.  To  ascertain  and  open  up  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  word,  and  to  apply  it  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  others,  is  to 
be  the  chief  business  of  your  future  lives.  As  preliminary,  however, 
to  this  work,  it  is  necessary  that  you  understand  fully  and  intelli¬ 
gently,  so  as  to  be  able  to  state  and  defend  your  opinions — first, 
what  the  Bible  is  ;  and  second,  how  or  in  what  way  the  mind  of 
the  Spirit  is  to  be  ascertained  from  it ;  and  that  then,  with  your 
understandings  and  hearts  deeply  impressed  with  right  views  upon 
these  subjects,  you  devote  yourselves  to  the  study  of  the  word 
itself,  and  bring  all  the  powers  of  your  minds,  and  all  the  know¬ 
ledge  and  skill  and  experience  you  may  have  acquired,  to  bear,  not 
merely  upon  the  correct  interpretation  of  its  statements  singly  and 
separately,  although  that  is  the  basis  of  all  sound  knowledge  ot 
Christian  theology,  but  upon  the  formation  of  right  conceptions  of 
the  whole  mind  of  God  as  revealed,  with  respect  to  everything 
contained  in  the  sacred  volume,  giving  their  due  place  and  pro¬ 
minence  to  those  subjects  which  are  manifestly  possessed  of  the 
greatest  intrinsic  importance.  The  study  of  the  Scriptures  is  so 
ordinary  and  familiar  an  occupation,  especially  with  many  who 
have  no  pretensions  to  rank  among  the  noble,  the  wise,  and  the 
mighty,  that  men  are  sometimes  apt  to  associate  it  with  ignorance, 
weakness,  and  obscurity,  and  to  imagine  that  theology,  when 
elevated  to  the  rank  of  a  science  (and  indeed  to  the  place  of  the 
first  and  highest  of  the  sciences,  for  so  it  has  ever  been  regarded  in 
all  Christian  countries),  and  when  taught  in  academic  halls,  must 


INTRODUCTORY. 


13 


be  something  totally  different  in  kind,  and  must  rest  upon  some 
other  basis  than  the  correct  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  to 
look  upon  the  careful  and  exact  investigation  of  the  meaning  of 
scriptural  statements  with  something  like  contempt.  Spiritual 
pride  produces  this  feeling,  as  well  as  pride  of  reason  and  science. 
This  notion,  or  anything  approaching  to  it,  is  a  dangerous  delusion. 
The  bringing  out  the  true  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scripture, 
and  the  deducing  from  a  comparison  of  them  the  whole  scheme  of 
truth  and  duty  which  are  taught  us  in  the  word,  are  the  only 
means  of  attaining  to  a  just  and  well-grounded  knowledge  of 
theology,  and  afford  the  fullest  exercise  for  all  the  highest  powers 
of  the  human  mind,  while  they  require  the  constant  presence  and 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  of  that  whole  process  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  statements  of  Scripture  is  the  basis  and 
foundation,  the  only  certain  ground  on  which  a  real  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  divine  things  can  rest.  You  have  already  in  your 
previous  studies  examined  the  book  of  nature,  the  works  of  crea¬ 
tion,  that  you  might  know  the  truth  concerning  God  and  your  own 
duty.  You  are  now  called  upon  to  examine  his  word,  which  he 
has  magnified  above  all  his  works,  and  which  at  least  as  much 
needs  and  deserves  a  minute  and  careful  investigation.  You  have, 
as  it  were,  exhausted  all  other  means  of  attaining  to  clear  and 
certain  knowledge  of  truth  and  duty  and  happiness,  and  nothing 
now  remains  but  that  you  listen  to  the  voice  of  God  speaking  in 
his  word,  and  subordinate  everything  to  the  object  of  ascertaining 
and  understanding  fully  what  he  has  told  you. 

A  full,  correct,  and  intelligent  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures 
is  not  by  any  means  so  easy  or  so  ordinary  an  attainment  as  men 
are  sometimes  apt  to  suppose.  It  requires  a  larger  measure  of 
natural  ability,  a  higher  degree  of  acquired  learning,  and  a  greater 
amount  of  patient  and  laborious  study  than  is  commonly  imagined. 
It  is  quite  true  that  the  great  leading  doctrines  and  duties  of 
Christianity  are  very  plainly  set  forth  in  Scripture,  and  that  every 
thing  needful  to  guide  men  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth 
and  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  blessedness,  may  be  certainly  learned, 
under  the  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit,  from  almost  any  translation  of 
the  Scriptures,  by  men  who  have  but  a  very  small  measure  of 
intellectual  culture  and  of  acquired  knowledge;  and  it  is  also 
true,  that  men  who,  from  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the 


14 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


word,  have  got  a  clear  perception  and  a  firm  hold  of  the  leading 
principles  of  God’s  oracles,  are  not  likely  to  fall  into  any  very 
dangerous  errors  in  the  interpretation  of  particular  portions  of 
Scripture.  But  though  all  this  is  true,  and  most  important  and 
encouraging  truth  it  is,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 
as  to  what  kind  and  degree  of  knowledge  of  God’s  word  may  be 
attained,  and  ought  to  be  aimed  at,  and  what  may  be  reasonably 
expected  of  those  who  aspire  to  be  the  public  instructors  of  others. 
They  ought  not  to  be  contented  with  knowing  the  word  of  God 
through  the  help  of  a  translation,  when  they  have  opportunities  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  the  original.  They  ought  not  to  be 
satisfied  with  understanding  the  few  fundamental  principles  of 
Scriptural  truth,  but  are  bound  to  acquire  as  thorough  and  accurate 
a  knowledge  as  they  can  of  the  whole  volume  which  God’s  Spirit 
inspired.  They  should  not  be  contented,  as  men  too  often  are, 
with  a  mere  familiarity  with  the  sense  of  the  words,  with  some 
vague  and  indefinite  inkling  of  the  meaning  of  a  scriptural  state¬ 
ment,  but  are  bound  to  employ  all  such  means  as  may  be  necessary 
for  understanding  fully  and  establishing  firmly  the  exact  meaning 
of  God’s  declarations,  and  to  bring  as  much  of  meditation  and 
reflection  to  bear  upon  them  as  may  produce  clear  and  definite 
conceptions  of  their  import.  It  is  of  indispensable  importance  that 
ministers  of  the  gospel  have  their  hearts  saturated  with  the  general 
spirit  and  substance  of  God’s  word,  with  the  leading  views  which 
are  there  unfolded,  but  it  is  necessary  also  that  they  have  so  full 
and  accurate  a  knowledge  of  the  exact  meaning  of  the  particular 
statements  of  Scripture,  as  to  be  able  to  open  them  up  and  expound 
them  to  others,  to  bring  out  clearly  and  intelligently  the  grounds 
in  the  correct  interpretation  of  God’s  word  on  which  their  own  con¬ 
victions  rest,  and  to  defend  them  if  needful  against  the  assaults  of 
adversaries.  Ministers  of  the  gospel  ought  not,  in  the  execution  of 
their  function,  which  consists  mainly  in  opening  up  and  expounding 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  the  word,  to  be  wholly  dependent  upon 
translators  and  commentators,  but  should  be  capable  of  under¬ 
standing  the  original  inspired  writings;  and  though  not  all  profound 
scholars  and  critics  themselves,  at  least  able  to  appreciate  and  to 
apply  the  erudite  and  critical  labours  of  others.  There  is  nothing 
which  affords  so  abundant  a  supply  of  interesting,  wholesome,  and 
edifying  matter  for  public  instruction,  as  that  knowledge  which  is 


INTRODUCTOItY. 


15 


the  result  of  a  thorough  familiarity  with  God’s  word,  of  much 
meditation  and  reflection  upon  the  statements  of  Scripture ; 
and  if  men  will  attempt  to  expound  and  apply  the  word  of  God 
for  the  instruction  of  others,  they  are  bound  by  the  most  solemn 
obligations  to  take  all  possible  pains,  and  to  use  all  practicable 
means,  first  for  satisfying  themselves,  and  then  for  convincing  others, 
that  what  they  are  setting  forth  from  the  Scriptures  is  what  God 
really  teaches  in  that  portion  of  his  inspired  word  which  they  are 
considering.  It  is  not  enough  that  the  matter  set  forth  be  the 
truth  of  God,  it  is  also  required,  to  use  the  language  of  our  Directory 
for  Public  Worship,  ‘'that  it  be  a  truth  contained  in  or  grounded  on 
that  text,  that  the  hearers  may  discern  how  God  teacheth  it  from 
thence.”  If  it  be  the  great  duty  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  to 
explain  and  open  up  the  Word  of  God  in  its  true  meaning  and 
real  import  for  the  salvation  of  men,  then  it  is  manifest  that  their 
theological  education  should  be  principally  directed  to  these  two 
objects — first,  that  they  acquire  that  information,  form  these  habits, 
and  be  impressed  with  these  general  views  and  principles,  which 
may  constrain  them  ever  after  to  devote  their  principal  attention  to 
the  study  of  God’s  Word,  and  may  afford  them  the  best  assistance  in 
attaining  most  speedily  and  most  certainly  to  a  correct  knowledge 
of  the  meaning  of  its  statements  ;  and  second,  that  they  become 
intelligently  and  accurately  acquainted  on  scriptural  grounds  with 
those  fundamental  doctrines  of  revelation  which  ought  to  pervade 
all  their  efforts  to  instruct  their  fellow-men,  as  bearing  most  directly 
and  immediately  upon  the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  which,  when 
distinctly  perceived,  and  firmly  held,  and  faithfully  applied,  will 
preserve  them  from  radical  or  fundamental  error  in  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  any  portion  of  Scripture. 

All  the  knowledge  then  you  may  have  acquired,  all  the  expe¬ 
rience  and  skill  you  may  have  attained,  are  henceforth  to  be 
brought  to  bear  more  or  less  directly  upon  the  study  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  and  the  great  object  of  acquiring  a  real,  thorough,  and 
influential  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things  from  the  revela¬ 
tion  which  he  has  given  us.  The  subjects  of  study  to  which  your 
attention  has  been  hitherto  directed  need  not,  and  should  not,  be 
altogether  neglected,  but  they  must  be  subordinated  to  the  study 
of  divine  truth  in  God’s  word.  The  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  are  the  only  classics  to  which  henceforth  you  are  to 


16 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


apply  the  precept,  “  Nocturna  versate  manu,  versate  diurna/’  The 
divine  character  and  government  you  are  henceforth  to  study,  not 
in  the  dim  light  of  nature,  but  in  the  bright  effulgence  of  revela¬ 
tion.  The  character,  duty,  and  destiny  of  man  you  are  to  investi¬ 
gate,  not  merely  by  looking  within  yourselves  upon  your  hearts, 
and  looking  around  you  on  the  position  in  which  you  find  your¬ 
selves  placed,  but  by  studying  the  information  communicated  to 
you  on  all  these  subjects  by  Him  who  made  the  heart  and  wdio 
knows  it  best,  who  alone  is  entitled  to  regulate  our  conduct,  and 
who  alone  determines  our  destiny.  And  in  investigating  these 
infinitely  important  subjects,  and  in  seeking  to  form  clear,  definite, 
and  impressive  conceptions  regarding  them,  such  as  may  most 
powerfully  influence  yourselves  and  most  fully  qualify  you  for 
becoming  the  instructors  of  others,  you  may,  even  when  most  fully 
enjoying  the  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit  and  the  light  of  his  word, 
and  when  most  humbly  and  implicitly  submitting  to  their  teach¬ 
ing,  find  full  scope  for  the  exercise  of  the  highest  powers  and  the 
most  exalted  faculties  which  God  has  ever  conferred  upon  any  of 
the  human  race. 

Christian  theology,  then,  is  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine 
things,  especially  of  Him  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  derived  from  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
A  full  and  adequate  knowledge  of  these  things,  adequate,  i.e.  so  far 
as  God  has  revealed  it  and  man  is  capable  of  receiving  it,  can  reside 
only  in  a  habile  or  capable  subject,  in  one  whose  eyes  have  been 
opened,  whose  understanding  has  been  enlightened,  and  whose 
nature  has  been  renewed.  It  can  come  only  from  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit  of  truth  convincing  men  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
word,  and  enabling  them  to  understand  its  meaning  ;  and  wherever 
and  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  conferred,  it  is  to  be  employed  for 
promoting  God’s  glory  and  the  eternal  welfare  of  men,  for  advanc¬ 
ing  our  own  conformity  to  God’s  image  and  meetness  for  his 
presence,  for  diffusing  scriptural  views  of  God  and  Christ  and  the 
way  of  salvation  in  the  world,  and  for  leading  men  to  embrace 
Christ,  and  to  grow  up  in  all  things  unto  Him  who  is  the  head. 
It  is  to  the  attainment  of  this  knowledge  that  your  studies  and 
prayers  should  now  be  directed.  You  seek  it,  because  God  has 
already  in  some  measure  opened  your  eyes  and  enabled  you  to 
discern  something  of  its  excellency,  so  that  you  desire  to  know 


IXTRODUCTORY. 


17 


more  of  it  and  to  live  more  under  its  power.  You  seek  it  because 
you  have  been  led  to  devote  yourselves  to  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
and  are  conscious  that  you  must  have  much  more  knowledge  of 
God  and  his  word  and  of  the  way  of  salvation,  before  you  could 
venture  to  engage  in  the  arduous  and  responsible  work  of  instruct¬ 
ing  others  in  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom.  And  you  are  resolved 
to  seek  it  from  God,  because  you  know  from  his  declaration  and 
your  past  experience  that  you  can  obtain  it  nowhere  else,  and 
that  he  giveth  liberally  and  upbraideth  not ;  while  at  the  same 
time  you  are  determined  to  employ  all  the  means,  to  improve  all 
the  opportunities,  and  to  avail  yourselves  of  all  the  assistance 
which  there  is  any  reason  to  expect  that  God  will  bless  for  attain¬ 
ing  this  end.  These,  I  trust,  are  your  views,  your  desires,  and 
your  purposes.  If  it  be  not  so,  there  is  but  little  reason  to  expect 
that  you  Avill  make  any  real  progress  in  the  studies  in  which  you 
are  about  to  be  engaged,  or  that  without  an  entire  change  of  heart 
and  character  you  can  become  qualified  for  the  work  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  ministry.  But  if  you  are  influenced  by  these  views  and 
desires,  and  are  enabled  to  carry  out  these  purposes,  then  we  can 
confidently  hold  out  to  you  much  pure  satisfaction,  much  exalted 
enjoyment  in  the  prosecution  of  your  studies;  and,  if  it  please 
God  to  spare  you,  we  can  set  before  you  a  most  encouraging 
prospect  of  abundant  usefulness  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord.  I 
would  fain  regard  it  as  a  presumption  that  you  are  in  some 
measure  influenced  by  such  views  and  feelings  as  these,  that  you 
have  resolved  to  cast  in  your  lot  with  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 
.  .  .  We  cannot  hold  out  to  you  in  the  ministry  of  the  Free 
Church  the  prospect  of  worldly  honours  and  emoluments,  of  the 
favour  or  countenance  of  the  wealthy  and  the  powerful,  or  of  the 
enjoyment  of  ease  or  idleness.  With  us  you  must  be  prepared  to 
endure  hardness,  as  good  soldiers  of  Christ  Jesus.  But  we  can 
offer  you  a  place  in  the  ministry  of  a  Church  which,  blessed  be 
God,  maintains  the  truth  of  God,  and  which  therefore  he  may 
be  reasonably  expected  to  bless.  We  can  hold  out  to  you  a 
wide  field  of  usefulness,  abundant  opportunities  of  labouring 
in  Christ’s  cause,  in  circumstances  wLich  afford  an  encouraging 
prospect  of  success.  God  has  set  before  us  an  open  door — no 
man  can  shut  it ;  and,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  state- 

B 


1 


18 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


ments  of  God’s  word,  the  general  principles  of  his  moral  govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  indications  of  his  providence,  there  is  no  reason 
to  fear  that  he  will  speedily  close  it.  When  He  who  had  ' 
struck  Paul  with  blindness  on  his  way  to  Damascus  was  direct¬ 
ing  Ananias  to  go  and  visit  him,  that  he  might  receive  his  sight 
and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  assured  him  that  Paul 
was  "‘a  chosen  vessel  to  bear  his  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and 
kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel and  then  he  added,  I  will 
.shew  him  how  great  things  he  must  suffer  for  my  name’s  sake” 
(Acts  ix.  16) ;  seemingly  intending  to  represent  both  the  sufferings 
themselves,  and  the  previous  intimation  of  them,  as  tokens  of  his 
favour  and  his  kindness.  And  men  who  have  any  real  love  to  the 
Saviour,  and  any  honest  zeal  for  his  glory,  will  not  shrink  from  his 
service  because  of  the  difficulties  and  hardships  that  may  lie  before 
them  in  the  work  to  which  they  may  be  called. 

I  have  said  that  I  would  fain  regard  it  as  a  presumption  that 
you  have  chosen  the  ministry  from  the  right  motives,  and  are  re¬ 
solved  to  prosecute  your  studies  in  a  right  spirit,  that  you  have 
cast  in  your  lot  with  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland ;  but  I  must 
warn  you  against  imagining  that  this  circumstance,  or  indeed 
anything  that  is  external  and  applies  to  men  in  the  mass,  can 
afford  any  sufficient  ground  for  establishing  the  soundness  of  your 
principles  or  the  purity  of  your  motives.  The  deceitfulness  of 
sin,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  men’s  hearts,  are  continually  at  work, 
leading  men  to  think  more  highly  of  themselves  than  they  ought 
to  think.  Satan  is  continually  exerting  his  utmost  skill  and 
activity  to  introduce  into  the  ministry  of  the  professing  church 
men  who  will  be  in  reality  his  servants  and  not  the  servants  of 
Christ.  He  knows  well  that  nothing  tends  so  much  to  the  ad¬ 
vancement  of  his  cause  as  an  unconverted  ministry.  He  will  not 
fail  to  direct  his  efforts  in  this  respect  against  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  we  can  scarcely  cherish  the  hope  that  he  will  be 
altogether  unsuccessful.  There  are  some  obvious  advantages  of 
which  he  will  not  fail  to  avail  himself  There  are  some  views 
and  considerations  which  may  induce  men  to  join  the  Free  Church 
of  Scotland,  of  a  more  creditable  and  elevated  kind  than  worldli¬ 
ness  or  selfishness  in  their  proper  forms,  but  which  yet  may  be 
entirely  separated  from  that  fear  of  God  which  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom,  from  real  godliness  of  heart  and  motive,  from  real  love 


INTRODUCTORY. 


19 


to  the  Saviour  and  regard  to  his  honour.  There  cannot  be  a 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  principles  for  which  the  Free  Church 
of  Scotland  has  been  called  upon  to  testify  and  to  suffer  are  in 
substance  the  same  for  which  our  forefathers  laid  down  their  lives, 
and  are  thus  associated  with  circumstances  and  transactions  which 
have  always  had  a  strong  hold  upon  the  hearts  and  feelings  of 
Scottish  Presbyterians,  and  which  must  appeal  most  powerfully  to 
every  patriotic  and  generous  mind.  Although,  then,  your  pre¬ 
ferring  the  Free  Church  may  prove  that  you  have  triumphed 
over  selfishness  in  some  of  its  lower  and  grosser  forms,  and  have 
subordinated  them  to  some  of  the  higher  and  nobler  principles  of 
our  nature,  it  is  still  quite  a  possible  thing  that  you  may  be  de¬ 
ceiving  yourselves  as  to  your  motives  in  entering  upon  the  study 
of  theology  with  a  view  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  and  in  doing 
so  in  the  circumstances  in  which  you  have  placed  yourselves. 
And  I  have  adverted  to  this  subject  for  the  purpose  of  warning 
you  that  you  should  not  trust  to  mere  presumptions  and  proba¬ 
bilities  in  judging  of  the  state  of  your  hearts,  and  the  motives  by 
which  you  are  animated,  but  that,  fully  alive  to  the  dangers  of 
self-deceit,  you-  search  and  try  your  ways,  see  that  you  have 
really  devoted  yourselves  to  Christ's  service,  and  are  now  ready  • 
and  willing  to  do  whatever  may  be  best  fitted  to  prepare  you  for 
usefulness  in  his  vineyard  ;  to  exert  yourselves  and  to  deny  your¬ 
selves,  that  you  may  acquire  all  that  knowledge,  and  form  all 
those  habits,  which  may  prepare  you  for  usefulness  and  respect¬ 
ability  in  the  ministry ;  animated  and  encouraged  amid  all  your 
studies  and  all  your  labours  by  a  growing  regard  to  the  glory  of 
God,  by  increasing  love  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  souls 
of  perishing  men. 

Christian  theology  is,  as  we  have  explained  to  you,  a  knowledge 
of  God  and  divine  things  as  they  are  set  before  us  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  The  principal  exercise,  therefore,  by  which  this  know¬ 
ledge  is  to  be  acquired,  so  far  as  natural  means  or  human  agency 
is  concerned,  must  be  the  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  God’s 
word,  and  the  application  of  the  ascertained  meaning  of  its  various 
statements  to  the  formation  of  clear  and  distinct  conceptions  as  to 
the  mind  and  will  of  God  with  regard  to  all  the  different  subjects 
which  the  statements  of  Scripture  respect.  This  ought  to  be  one 
of  your  principal  exercises  during  the  remainder  of  your  lives,  and 


20 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


the  foundation  of  the  knowledge  and  of  the  habits  by  which  it 
may  be  successfully  prosecuted  should  be  laid  during  your  attend¬ 
ance  at  this  place.  There  are,  however,  some  important  topics 
which  are  in  a  certain  sense  preliminary  to  this.  When  the  general 
nature  and  object  of  theology  are  explained  and  illustrated,  the 
first  questions  that  naturally  occur  are — What  are  these  sacred 
Scriptures  ?  Why  ought  they  to  be  studied  with  such  care  and 
diligence  ?  In  what  way  and  by  what  means  may  their  meaning  be 
most  correctly  and  certainly  ascertained  ? 

The  sacred  Scripture  contains  a  revelation  from  God ;  or,  in 
other  words,  the  Jewish  and  Christian  religions  are  true;  and  not 
only,  so,  but  the  Scriptures  are  themselves  the  word  of  God  given  by 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  intended  by  him  to  be  the 
exclusive  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that 
they  ought  to  be  studied,  and  that  all  appropriate  means  should  be 
sedulously  and  unceasingly  employed  by  which  we  may  attain  to 
a  correct  and  certain  knowledge  of  their  meaning.  It  is  with  the 
investigation  of  these  preliminary  subjects  that  you  are  to  be 
mainly  occupied  at  this  class  during  the  first  session  of  your  theo¬ 
logical  studies — the  evidences  of  Christianity,  the  canonicity  and 
inspiration  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  their  sufficiency,  perfection, 
and  exclusive  authority  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  (a  subject 
of  more  interest  and  importance  in  the  present  day  than  in  some 
preceding  generations,  in  consequence  of  the  revival  of  Popish 
corruptions  by  many  men  who  have  not  yet  joined  the  Church  of 
Rome) ;  and  the  general  principles  of  scriptural  interpretation,  the 
leading  considerations  that  ought  to  be  kept  in  view  and  acted 
upon  in  order  that  you  may  attain  to  a  correct  understanding  of 
their  meaning,  and  the  best  mode  of  applying  them  to  the  pur¬ 
pose  they  were  intended  to  serve.  I  would  not  like  to  spend  a 
whole  session  merely  about  the  Scriptures  without  entering  at  all 
within  them.  I  have  it  in  contemplation  to  examine  those  por¬ 
tions  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  which  give  us  information  concerning 
the  Scriptures  themselves,  selecting  these  portions  because  the 
information  they  contain  bears  most  directly  upon  the  general 
subject  of  the  course,  but  meaning  to  attempt  to  treat  them  so  as 
to  illustrate  some  of  the  principal  rules  according  to  which  the 
general  interpretation  of  Scripture  ought  to  be  conducted.  In 
this  way  I  hope  to  be  able,  in  the  course  of  the  session,  to  brin^ 


INTRODUCTORY. 


21 


before  you,  and  to  assist  you  in  more  fully  understanding  the 
import  and  the  grounds  of  the  truths  we  believe  concerning  the 
origin,  the  authority,  the  character  and  perfection,  the  objects  and 
uses  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
they  ought  to  be  interpreted  and  applied,  in  order  that  having 
sound  views  upon  all  these  points  deeply  impressed  upon  your 
minds,  you  may  thus  have  a  good  foundation  laid  for  all  your 
future  studies  and  labours  in  investigating,  as  fully  as  you  can,  the 
meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  and  in  seeking  to  have  the  fullest 
and  most  intelligent  comprehension  of  all  those  leading  truths  with 
respect  both  to  belief  and  to  practice  which,  “  according  to  the 
commandment  of  the  everlasting  God,  have  been  made  known  unto 
all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith.” 

If  a  high  and  solemn  responsibility  attaches  to  every  one  of  you 
in  beginning  such  a  course  of  study  as  this,  and  preparing  for  such 
an  occupation  as  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  how  great  must  be  the 
responsibility  of  those  who  are  called  to  superintend  your  studies, 
and  to  assist  you  in  the  prosecution  of  them  ! 

I  trust  I  am  not  altogether  insensible  of  the  responsibility  that 
attaches  to  me,  and  of  my  insufficiency  for  these  things.  But  we 
all  need  to  be  more  deeply  humbled  and  more  thoroughly  abased, 
and  to  be  stirred  up  to  seek  for  ourselves,  and  for  each  other,  that 
God  would  make  his  grace  sufficient  for  us  and  perfect  his  strength 
in  our  weakness.  It  is  my  hope  and  expectation  that  the  zeal  and 
ardour  with  which  you  will  engage  in  the  prosecution  of  your 
studies,  and  the  copious  effusion,  given  in  answer  to  our  prayers, 
of  the  Spirit  of  him  who  alone  teacheth  savingly  and  to  profit,  will 
make  you  in  a  great  measure  independent  of  your  instructor  for 
your  progress  in  the  knowledge  of  divine  things,  but  may  at  the 
same  time  make  even  the  feeble  and  imperfect  assistance  which  he 
may  be  able  to  render  you  not  altogether  unprofitable.  I  trust 
I  can  with  some  measure  of  sincerity  adopt  the  language  of  the 
Apostle,  and  say,  ‘‘  For  this  cause  we  also,  since  the  day  we  heard 
it,  do  not  cease  to  pray  for  you,  and  to  desire  that  ye  might  be 
filled  with  the  knowledge  of  his  will  in  all  wisdom  and  spiritual 
understanding  ;  that  ye  might  walk  worthy  of  the  Lord  unto  all 
pleasing,  being  fruitful  in  every  good  work,  and  increasing  in  the 
knowledge  of  God  ;  strengthened  with  all  might,  according  to  his 
glorious  power,  unto  all  patience  and  long-suffering  with  joyfulness” 


92 


FIRST  LECTURE. 


(Col.  i.  9-11),  and  this  result  will  most  assuredly  be  realized  if 
each  one  of  you  is  prepared  to  adopt  the  language  of  the  same 
Apostle  on  another  occasion,  and  to  say,  But  what  things  were 
gain  to  me,  those  I  counted  loss  for  Christ.  Yea  doubtless,  and  I 
count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of 
Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  :  for  whom  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all 
things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung,  that  I  may  win  Christ,  and 
be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the 
law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteous¬ 
ness  which  is  of  God  by  faith  :  that  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power 
of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being  made 
conformable  unto  his  death  ;  if  by  any  means  I  might  attain  unto 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ”  (Phil.  iii.  7-11). 


I 


LECTURE  II. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


Haying  adverted  briefly  and.  generally  to  the  character  and 
objects  of  the  studies  which  are  to  occupy  your  attention,  and, 
I  trust,  to  engross  your  time  and  your  faculties  for  several  years,  if 
the  Lord  should  be  pleased  to  spare  you,  it  may  be  proper  to  give 
you  a  somewhat  more  detailed  view  of  the  extent  of  theological 
science,  of  the  different  branches  into  which  it  has  been  or  may  be 
divided,  and  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  study  of  it  ought 
to  be  conducted.  It  is  right  that  you  should,  at  this  early  period  of 
your  studies,  be  duly  impressed  with  the  magnitude  and  extent  of 
the  work  which,  even  when  viewed  simply  and  in  the  first  instance 
as  the  study  of  a  branch  of  knowledge,  lies  before  you ;  and  just 
because  of  the  magnitude  and  extent  of  the  subject,  it  is  the  more 
important  that  you  have  some  practical  directions  to  assist  you  in 
the  regulation  of  your  studies,  and  especially  to  point  out  how  you 
may  most  usefully  employ  the  time  to  be  more  particularly  devoted 
to  this  object,  so  as  to  secure  that  you  may  all  acquire  that  measure 
of  knowledge  of  theological  science,  which  may  be  regarded  as 
indispensable  before  you  enter  upon  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and 
may  at  the  same  time  lay  the  best  foundation  for  the  prosecuting 
those  investisfations  into  the  revealed  mind  and  will  of  God,  which 
should  continue  so  long  as  you  live.  After  having  described  the 
different  branches  of  theological  science  in  the  order  in  which  they 
ought  to  be  studied,  I  shall  suggest  some  practical  counsels  that 
may  assist  you  in  the  work,  and  point  out  the  spirit  as  well  as  the 
manner  in  which  this  study  ought  to  be  prosecuted.  Those  who 
are  to  be  engaged  in  this  study  are  men,  rational  and  intelligent 
beings,  who  find  themselves  possessed  of  certain  faculties  and 
capacities  of  investigating  truth  and  acquiring  knowledge,  and  the 


24 


SECOND  LECTURE, 


object  of  their  investigation  is  God,  of  whom  they  have  been  led 
to  conceive  as  a  great  and  glorious  Being,  who  has  created  all 
things,  and  who  preserves  and  governs  them.  In  directing  their 
attention  to  this  subject,  with  the  view  of  carefully  investigating 
it,  the  first  questions  that  naturally  occur  are  such  as  these :  How 
may  God  and  his  will  be  known  ?  What  means  have  we  of 
attaining  to  the  knowledge  of  Him  ?  What  do  we  know  or  believe 
concerning  Him  already  ?  From  what  source  has  this  knowledge 
of  Him  been  derived  ?  and  on  what  basis  does  it  rest  ?  These 
questions  lead  us  at  once  to  the  consideration  of  what  we  can  learn 
concerning  God  from  the  constitution  of  our  natures  and  the 
exercise  of  our  faculties  upon  ourselves,  and  upon  the  objects  around 
ns,  and  should  also  lead  us  further  to  inquire,  whether  God  has 
at  any  time  given  to  men  any  more  direct  and  formal  revelation 
concerning  himself.  The  investigation  of  what  may  be  known 
about  God  from  the  exercise  of  those  faculties  which  form  the 
leading  characteristic  of  our  species  upon  ourselves,  and  upon  the 
other  objects  accessible  to  us,  constitute  what  is  commonly  called 
natural  religion,  or  the  religion  of  nature,  as  distinguished  from 
that  knowledge  which  God  is  believed  to  have  imparted  to  men 
concerning  himself  through  direct  communications  which  he  has 
made  to  them.  If  God  has  made  any  direct  communications 
to  men  concerning  himself,  it  may  be  naturally  supposed  that 
these  will  convey  to  us  more  clear  and  certain  knowledge  than 
could  be  acquired  in  any  other  way  ;  and  men  will  therefore  rea¬ 
sonably  turn  their  attention  to  professed  revelations  from  God 
concerning  himself,  and  examine  their  claims  to  credibility.  The 
Jewish  religion  and  the  Christian  religion  alone  have  any  such 
verisimilitude  as  to  entitle  their  claims  to  a  careful  examination, 
and  to  an  investigation  therefore  of  the  claims  of  these  religions  to 
a  divine  origin  will  the  attention  of  men  who  are  desirous  to 
attain  to  certain  knowledge  concerning  God  be  naturally  directed. 

The  account  both  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  religion  is  to 
be  found  in  that  collection  of  writings  which  we  call  the  Bible  or 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  To  ascertain  the  character  and  the  claims 
of  these  writings  is  to  investigate  the  truth  of  these  religions ; 
and  if  it  can  be  proved  that  they  do  indeed  contain  a  revelation 
from  God,  then  an  investigation  of  their  meaning  must  constitute 
mainly  and  principally  the  study  of  theology.  The  study  of 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


25 


Christian  theology,  indeed,  is  just  the  investigation  of  the  mean¬ 
ing  and  application  of  the  revelation  which  God  has  given  us 
concerning  himself,  as  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures ;  and 
Christian  theology  itself  is  just  a  name  descriptive  of  the  whole 
information  to  be  derived  from  that  source  concerning  God,  his 
character,  government,  and  relation  to  us,  his  purposes  with  re¬ 
gard  to  us,  and  the  duty  which  he  requires  of  us.  But  while 
Christian  theology  is  properly  the  knowledge  derived  from  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  viewed  as  already  proved  to  contain  a  revela¬ 
tion  from  God,  and  while  the  study  of  it,  therefore,  may  be  said 
to  consist  in  in  vest  i  statin  and  ascertainino^  the  meaninof  and  im- 
port  of  what  the  sacred  Scriptures  contain,  and  emplojdng  their 
discoveries  for  regulating  our  opinions  and  our  conduct,  yet  it  has 
been  customary  to  include  under  it,  and  as  indeed  the  first  branch 
of  it,  the  investigation  of  the  claims  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  re¬ 
ception  they  have  met  with  as  being,  or  at  least  as  containing,  a 
divine  revelation.  And  accordingly,  in  most  of  the  older  systems  of 
theology,  it  is  common  to  begin,  after  some  general  explanation  of 
the  nature,  dignity,  objects,  and  general  character  of  the  science, 
with  some  exposition  of  the  grounds  on  which  the  Bible  is  held  to 
contain  a  revelation  from  God  concerning  himself ;  in  other  words, 
with  a  statement  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  the  proofs 
of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  In  more 
modern  systems  of  theology  published  on  the  continent,  and  espe¬ 
cially  in  Germany,  it  is  common,  in  order  to  exhibit  a  rigidly  and 
minutely  accurate  method,  and  to  follow  out  fully  the  idea  that  a 
system  of  Christian  theology  is  just  a  systematic  exposition  of 
the  information  actually  contained  in  or  deducihle  from  the  Bible 
itself,  to  introduce  a  summary  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity, 
and  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  under  the 
designation  of  prolegomena,  or  prcecognita,  or  proecognoscenda  ; 
while  with  that  strong  tendency  to  divide  and  subdivide  by  which 
the  Germans  especially  are  distinguished,  they  have  given  to  this 
subject,  viewed  by  itself  and  apart  from  its  relation  to  systematic 
divinity,  the  special  designation  of  apologetic  theology,  to  indicate 
that  it  comprehends  everything  connected  with  the  defence  of  the 
claims  which  Christianity  and  the  Bible  put  forth  to  be  received 
as  coming  from  God.  This  naturally  occupies  the  first  place  in  a 
course  of  theological  study,  both  because  the  question,  whether 


26 


SECOND  LECTURE. 


God  has  given  a  direct  and  supernatural  revelation  of  himself  to 
men,  obviously  occurs  whenever  men's  thoughts  are  directed  to 
the  contemplation  of  God,  and  because  it  is  only  a  conviction  of 
the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible  that  will  lead  men 
to  examine  the  Scriptures  in  a  right  spirit,  and  with  right  objects, 
and  to  make  a  right  use  of  the  information  which  they  contain. 

It  has  been  common  to  divide  theological  science,  or  the  whole 
of  the  subjects  that  ought  to  be  embraced  in  a  course  of  theological 
study,  into  four  great  branches — 1st,  Exegetical ;  2d,  Systematic ; 
3d,  Historical;  and  4th,  Pastoral  Theology — each  of  which  admits  of 
being  broken  down  into  several  subdivisions.  This  general  division 
is  sufficiently  accurate, and  maybe  usefully  remembered  and  applied. 
We  shall  briefly  describe  each  of  these  in  the  order  now  stated. 

1.  Exegetical  Theology.  The  word  s^rr/yjaig  from  which  the  term 
is  derived  (coming  from  the  verb  s^yjysofLai)  just  means  explication 
or  exposition,  and  this  department  therefore  might  be  called  explan¬ 
atory  or  expository  theology.  It  comprehends  everything  con¬ 
nected  with  the  investigation  of  the  exact  meaning  of  the  state¬ 
ments  which  compose  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and,  of  course, 
embraces  a  very  wide  range  of  topics.  It  may,  without  much 
straining,  be  regarded  as  comprehending  Apologetic  Theology,  or 
the  evidences  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  and  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Bible — 1st,  because  right  views  of  the  origin,  the 
authority,  and  the  objects  of  the  Bible,  form  not  only  reasons  why 
it  ought  to  be  studied  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  its  meaning, 
but  do,  or  may,  affect  the  way  in  which  it  ought  to  be  explained 
and  interpreted  ;  and  2d,  because  some  knowledge  of  what  is  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Bible,  in  other  words  some  exegesis  of  its  state¬ 
ments,  is  necessary  before  we  can  fully  ascertain  its  general 
character  and  claims.  This  last  idea  of  the  necesssity  of  under¬ 
standing  and  interpreting  the  Bible  before  deciding  upon  its  claims, 
origin,  and  authority,  has  been  carried  out  so  far  by  some  writers 
as  to  have  been  made  the  ground  of  a  proposed  arrangement  of 
theological  study,  by  which  the  whole  subject  of  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture  occupies  the  very  first  place  in  the  course,  and  is  made 
to  take  precedence  even  of  the  consideration  of  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  and  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible.  See  Bishop 
Marsh’s  second  preliminary  Lecture  to  his  valuable  and  useful  work 
entitled  Lectures  on  the  Criticism  and  Interpretation  of  the  Bible. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


27 


Assuming,  what  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the  materials  for  deter¬ 
mining  the  credibility  and  authority  of  the  Bible  are  partlj^,  at  least, 
derived  from  the  contents  of  the  Bible  itself,  he  infers  that  the  right 
arrangement  of  a  course  of  theological  study  is  that  everything 
connected  with  the  criticism  of  the  Bible — i.e.  the  settling  of  the 
text,  or  the  determining  what  are  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  vocables 
which  the  inspired  writers  actually  used,  which  constitute  the 
Bible,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  or  the  explanation 
of  its  true  and  real  statements — should  be  fully  and  minutely 
discussed  and  thoroughly  mastered  before  we  proceed  to  inves¬ 
tigate  its  origin  and  authority.  This  arrangement  is,  perhaps, 
in  strict  logic  correct,  but  for  any  practical  useful  purpose 
it  is  unnecessary.  And  it  is  unwarrantable  on  several  grounds, 
and  constrained.  It  seems  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  learned 
bishop  chiefly  as  a  reason  or  ground  for  commencing  his  theo¬ 
logical  course,  and  occupying  the  principal  share  of  his  time  in 
his  labours  as  a  professor  of  divinity,  with  that  department  of 
theological  science  with  which  he  was  best  acquainted,  and  in 
which  he  took  the  deepest  interest ;  for  his  theological  course,  so  far 
at  least  as  it  has  been  published,  did  not  go  beyond  this.  There 
is  no  real  necessity  for  a  strict  adherence  to  this  order,  while  it  is 
attended  with  much  awkwardness  and  inconvenience.  I  presume 
you  all  feel  that  if  you  have  not  already  studied  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  and  the  proofs  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  you  ought  to  investigate  them  now  before  proceeding 
any  further  in  your  theological  studies ;  and  if  you  do  so,  you  will 
assuredly  find  that  there  are  sufficient  materials  for  coming  to  a 
conclusion  upon  this  subject,  the  discovery  and  application  of  which 
do  not  require  any  very  minute  or  careful  attention  to  the  more 
recondite  and  difficult  questions  connected  either  with  the  criticism 
or  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  The  various  subjects  compre¬ 
hended  under  exegetical  theology,  in  the  wide  sense  in  which  it 
has  been  explained,  may  be  arranged  in  the  following  order  with 
sufficient  attention  to  logical  accuracy,  and  in  a  way  corresponding 
with  the  natural  and  obvious  train  of  thought  likely  to  occur  in 
a  general  survev  of  them. 

(1.)  The  evidence  that  the  Bible  contains  a  revelation  of  God  to 
man,  or  what  are  commonly  called  the  evidences  of  Christianity. 
(2.)  The  canon,  or  the  consideration  of  what  those  books  or  writings. 


28 


SECOND  LECTURE. 


to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  are,  by  which  God  intended  this 
revelation  to  be  communicated  to  us,  and  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
inspired  for  that  purpose.  (3.)  The  divine  authority  and  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Scriptures,  or  the  investigation  of  all  that  is  involved 
in  the  position  that  the  Scriptures  not  only  contain  or  embody  a 
divine  revelation,  but  are  themselves  the  word  of  God,  and  were 
produced  by  the  agency  of  his  Spirit.  (4.)  The  general  characters 
or  properties  of  the  Scriptures,  such  as  their  perspicuity,  sufficiency, 
and  perfection,  by  which  they  are  fitted  for  the  great  purpose  they 
were  intended  to  serve,  viz.,  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  (5.)  What  is  more  strictly  and  properly  exegetical  theo- 
logy,  or  the  investigation  of  everything  bearing  upon  the  way  and 
manner  in  which  the  Bible  is  to  be  used  and  applied,  so  that  it 
may  successfully  accomplish  this  intended  object;  and  this  subject 
is  now  usually  considered  under  two  heads — 1st,  The  criticism  of 
the  Bible,  which  by  modern  writers  has  been  restricted  to  mean 
the  investigation  of  the  text,  the  settling  of  the  true  reading  in 
the  original  languages ;  and  2d,  The  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  a 
much  more  important  and  extensive  subject,  and  one  which  admits 
of  several  subdivisions,  such  as  1st,  Philology,  or  a  knowledge  of 
the  languages  in  which  the  Scriptures  were  written  ;  2d,  Hermen¬ 
eutics,  or  the  science  of  interpretation,  comprehending  an  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  general  principles  and  rules  according  to  which  the 
interpretation  of  the  particular  statements  of  Scripture  ought  to 
be  conducted ;  and  3d,  Exegesis,  or  the  actual  practice  or  exercise 
of  interpretation. 

It  is  very  plain  that  every  one  who  wishes  to  study  theology,  so 
as  to  be  really  acquainted  with  the  science,  must  have  some  know¬ 
ledge  of  all  these  topics ;  and  that  every  one  who  aspires  to  the 
office  of  a  minister  of  the  word  and  an  instructor  of  others,  ought, 
if  possible,  to  be  familiar  with  them.  They  embrace  a  very  wide 
and  extensive  range,  affording  scope  for  all  diversities  of  talent,  for 
the  exercise  of  all  your  faculties,  and  for  the  application  of  all  the 
knowledge  and  all  the  habits  of  investigation  which  you  may  have 
already  acquired ;  and  they  are  preliminary  to  that  which  ought  to 
be  henceforth  the  great  business  of  your  lives,  the  investigating 
and  unfolding  the  whole  mind  and  will  of  God  revealed  in  his 
word  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  they  thus  form  the  necessary 
basis  or  substratum  of  all  those  labours  and  studies  which  it  will 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


29 


be  your  duty  to  prosecute,  not  merely  while  you  are  preparing  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  but  also  while  you  are  engaged  in  the 
discharge  of  its  duties,  even  until  you  enter  upon  that  state  where 
you  will  no  longer  see  through  a  glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face. 

These  subjects  are  all  preliminary  to  the  study  of  Christian 
theology  in  its  more  limited  sense,  as  descriptive  of  the  actual 
information  given  us  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  to  be  received 
as  resting  upon  God’s  authority,  except,  indeed,  the  subjects  of  the 
Inspiration  and  some  others  of  the  general  qualities  or  properties 
and  objects  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  with  respect  to  which  we  have 
information  given  us  in  the  Bible  itself,  which  it  will  be  needful 
for  us  to  examine,  and  on  which,  after  having  established  the 
general  credibility  of  the  Scriptures,  it  will  be  reasonable  for  us 
to  rely.  All  these  subjects  now  briefly  stated  are  comprehended 
in  the  course  which  we  must  endeavour  to  traverse  during  the 
present  session ;  and  from  their  magnitude  and  extent,  you  will 
see  at  once  how  impossible  it  must  be  to  treat  any  of  them  very 
fully,  and  w^hat  diligence  and  exertion  and  self-denial  will  be 
necessary  on  your  part  in  order  that,  through  God’s  blessing,  you 
may  all  acquire  a  creditable  acquaintance  with  them  as  the  basis 
and  groundwork  of  your  future  studies.  As  we  will,  of  course,  have 
occasion  in  trying  to  assist  you  in  the  study  of  all  these  important 
topics,  to  explain  to  you  more  fully  their  nature  and  importance, 
and  their  relations  to  each  other,  we  shall  not  dwell  longer  upon 
them  at  present,  but  proceed  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  general 
character  and  objects  of  the  other  leading  divisions  of  theological 
science,  that  you  may  have  some  idea  of  the  whole  field,  although, 
for  the  present  session,  you  will  not  go  beyond  that  portion  of  it 
which  has  already  been  marked  out. 

2.  Systematic  Theology.  The  next  great  division  is  what  is 
commonly  called  systematic  theology,  while  it  is  known  also  under 
the  designations  of  dogmatic  and  thetic  theology — the  former 
name  referring  more  to  the  form,  and  the  two  latter  to  the  matter. 
It  is  just  the  truths  or  doctrines,  the  dogmata  or  theses  taught  or 
revealed  in  Scripture,  in  regard  to  all  matters  about  which  infor¬ 
mation  is  there  communicated,  arranged,  or  digested  into  a  system. 
The  Bible  does  not  exhibit  any  systematic  summary  or  classified 
digest  of  the  truths  which  it  reveals  to  us,  and  which  we  are 
required  to  believe  upon  its  authority  ”  and  it  is  not  difficult  to 


30 


SECOND  LECTUEE, 


see  something  of  the  wisdom  of  such  a  plan  in  the  composition  of  a 
divine  revelation.  The  book  of  revelation,  as  it  has  been  often 
remarked,  is  in  this  respect  like  the  book  of  nature.  In  surve3dng 
God's  works  of  creation,  we  find  almost  every  object  in  a  certain 
sense  isolated  and  unconnected.  On  examination,  however,  we 
soon  discover  order  in  the  midst  of  apparent  confusion  ;  we  discover 
resemblances  and  harmonies,  relations  and  connections  of  various 
kinds  subsisting  among  the  innumerable  objects  presented  to  our 
contemplation,  which  lay  a  basis  for  systematising  or  classifying. 
This  systematising  and  classifying  of  the  numerous  and  diversified 
objects  which  the  book  of  nature  presents  to  us,  on  the  ground  of 
their  resemblances  and  other  relations,  constitutes  what  is  usually 
called  science.  It  has  afforded  scope  for  the  highest  exercises 
of  the  human  faculties,  and  has  tended  greatly  to  improve  both 
the  quality  and  the  extent  of  our  knowledge  of  the  works  of  God. 
Just  so  it  is  in  the  book  of  revelation.  Every  particular  statement 
contained  in  the  sacred  Scripture  is  just  analogous  to  a  single 
separate  fact  in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  When  its  meaning  is 
once  fully  established  by  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  by  a  right 
use  of  the  resources  of  hermeneutics  and  exegesis,  it  stands  as  an 
ascertained  fact,  a  truth  which  God  has  revealed  to  us.  But  in 
the  same  book  of  revelation  there  may  be,  we  find  in  fact  in  many 
cases  there  are,  scattered  up  and  down,  if  we  might  so  speak, 
statements  of  a  similar  kind,  relating  to  the  same  or  similar 
subjects,  which,  when  compared  together,  may  throw  light  upon 
each  other,  and  lead  to  important  general  conclusions  that  perhaps 
could  not  safely  or  warrantably  or  certainly  be  deduced  from  any 
one  of  them  ;  and  at  anyrate  the  knowledge  and  comparison  of  all 
these  different  statements  may  be  necessary  in  order  to  our  under¬ 
standing  the  whole  of  what  God  intended  to  communicate  to  us, 
and  therefore  expected  that  we  should  understand  and  believe  in 
regard  to  that  particular  subject.  Systematic  theology  then  just 
exhibits  the  classified  result  of  the  whole  information  given  us  in 
different  statements  and  in  various  portions  of  the  book  of  revela¬ 
tion,  in  regard  to  all  the  leading  topics  wliich  are  there  brought 
under  our  notice.  The  process  by  which  a  system  of  theology  may 
be  formed  is  evidently  quite  a  legitimate  one.  It  should  rest  as 
its  basis  solely  upon  a  careful  examination  and  a  correct  interpre¬ 
tation,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  by  the  use  of  the  apparatus 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


31 


of  hermeneutics,  of  the  particular  statements  of  Scripture ;  and 
unless  it  rest  upon  this  basis,  it  is  of  no  more  validity  or  value 
than  the  pretended  natural  science  of  the  dark  ages,  which  did 
not  rest  upon  an  accurate  observation  of  the  facts  and  phenomena* 
of  nature.  But  when  the  meaning  of  the  particular  statements  of 
Scripture  has  been  accurately  ascertained  in  the  right  use  of  the 
appropriate  means,  there  can  be  nothing  wrong  or  illegitimate, 
nothing  unreasonable  or  injurious,  in  comparing  together  the 
various  passages  which  bear  more  or  less  directly  upon  the  same 
subject,  and  deducing,  from  an  examination  of  them  all,  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  what  God  meant  to  teach  us  upon  the  point,  which 
however  in  his  wisdom  he  has  usually  thought  proper  to  teach  us, 
not  by  formal  abstract  deliverances,  systematically  classified  and 
arranged,  but  by  a  variety  of  statements  more  or  less  directly 
bearing  upon  the  particular  topic,  and  scattered  to  appearance 
indiscriminately,  but  in  reality  with  divine  and  admirable  wisdom, 
over  the  whole  field  of  the  word. 

It  has  been  no  uncommon  thing  for  a  certain  class  of  writers 
upon  theological  subjects  to  declaim  against  systematic  theology, 
and  against  the  works  which  are  classed  under  the  general  desig¬ 
nation  of  systems.  This  dislike  of  systematic  theology  and  of 
systems  has  arisen  from  ignorance  and  misconception  or  unrea¬ 
sonable  prejudice,  and  in  some  cases  we  fear  from  worse  motives. 
A  very  large  proportion  of  the  systems  of  theology  which,  until  the 
rise  of  infidel  neology  on  the  Continent  about  the  middle  of  last 
century  had  been  given  to  the  world,  were  orthodox  or  Calvinistic, 
i.e.  a  large  proportion  of  them  gave  generally,  and  in  the  main,  a 
sound  and  correct  summary  of  the  leading  truths  contained  in  the 
word  of  God.  And  this  was  not  by  any  means  an  accidental  thing. 
The  orthodox  or  Calvinistic  scheme  is  the  most  systematic  of  all 
systems,  possessing  the  beautiful  consistency  and  harmony  of  truth, 
and  deriving  from  its  systematic  consistency  a  presumption  in 
favour  of  its  soundness.  On  these  accounts,  a  dislike  of  systematic 
theology,  and  a  disposition  to  rail  at  systems  and  system-makers, 
has  been  with  many  little  else  than  an  indication  of  a  dislike  to 
Calvinism,  and  to  the  works  in  which  the  Calvinistic  system  was 
unfolded.  And  in  so  far  as  this  dislike  to  systematic  theology 
professed  to  rest  upon  reasonable  considerations,  it  has  usually 
been  alleged  that  systems  of  man’s  making  have  a  tendency  to 


32 


SECOND  LECTURE. 


supersede  the  word  of  God,  and  that  the  study  of  them  tends  to 
lead  men  to  disregard  the  word  of  God  as  the  only  standard  of 
truth,  and  to  be  less  careful  about  ascertaining  accurately  the  exact 
’  import  of  its  statements.  An  exclusive  devotion  to  system-making 
in  theology,  and  the  spending  a  great  deal  of  time  in  perusing 
systems,  may  have  some  tendency  to  lead  to  this  abuse.  But  the 
abuse  may  be  guarded  against,  and  will  be  guarded  against,  by  the 
habitual  recollection  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  or  standard 
according  to  which  both  our  opinions  and  our  practice  ought  to  be 
regulated,  and  that  we  are  to  receive  no  truth  or  doctrine  as  a 
part  of  our  creed  merely  because  it  is  found  in  some  esteemed 
system,  and  seems  to  be  consistent  and  to  fit  in  well  with  the  other 
parts  of  it ;  and  that  men  are  bound  to  be  satisfied  themselves,  and 
to  be  ever  ready,  if  duly  called  upon,  to  shew  to  others,  that  all  the 
theological  opinions  they  entertain  can  be  established  by  a  rigid 
and  exact  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  the  actual  statements  of 
God’s  word.  You  are  not  called  upon  at  the  commencement  of 
your  theological  studies  to  be  devoting  3mur  time  to  the  study  of 
systems  of  theology,  or  of  those  works  which  usually  pass  under 
that  name.  There  are  preliminary  topics  with  which,  and  with 
the  works  in  which  they  are  explained  and  illustrated,  you  ought 
in  the  first  instance  to  be  occupied.  But  even  now  you  ought, 
according  to  your  means  and  opportunities,  to  be  acting  as  s^^ste- 
matic  theologians,  or  making  a  system  for  yourselves,  i.e.  you 
ought  to  be  not  merely  studying  the  word  of  God  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  precise  and  exact  meaning  of  its  individual 
statements,  but  classifying  and  comparing  them,  and  endeavouring 
to  form  a  clear  conception  of  the  general  substance  of  the  whole 
truth  taught  there  in  regard  to  all  the  leading  subjects  which  are 
there  unfolded.  Indeed,  the  duty  of  making  a  system  of  theology 
from  the  word  of  God,  based  in  all  its  parts  upon  an  accurate 
examination  of  the  precise  import  of  its  statements,  is  not  incum¬ 
bent  only  on  those  who  study  theological  science  for  their  own 
improvement,  or  with  the  view  of  becoming  the  instructors  of 
others,  but  even  on  private  Christians,  on  all  who  are  desirous  to 
make  an  intelligent  and  profitable  use  of  the  word  of  God.  No 
man  can  be  said  to  have  made  a  right  use  of  the  word  of  God 
who  has  not  deduced  from  it  a  system  of  theology,  and  so  far 
acted  the  part  of  a  system-maker,  i.e.  who  has  not  derived  from  it 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


33 


definite  conceptions  of  the  substance  of  the  doctrines  taught  there 
concerning  the  character  and  moral  government  of  God,  the  person 
and  the  work  of  Christ,  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  natural 
state  and  condition  of  man,  and  the  way  of  his  restoration  to  the 
enjoyment  of  God’s  favour  and  to  a  meetness  for  heaven,  and 
who  is  not  able  to  give  some  explanation  of  the  warrants  and 
grounds  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  for  the  views  which  he  professes 
upon  all  these  subjects.  The  crown  and  the  copestone  indeed  of 
the  study  of  theology  as  a  branch  of  knowledge  directed  to  the 
illumination  of  the  understanding,  and  viewed  apart  from  its 
bearing  upon  the  formation  of  personal  character  and  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  personal  salvation,  is  just  the  formation  of  a  system  of 
theology,  i.e.  the  formation  of  distinct  and  well-defined  and  well- 
digested  views  upon  the  leading  subjects  revealed  in  the  Bible; 
views  which  are  really  in  accordance  with  God’s  revealed  will,  and 
which  can  be  fully  established  by  a  correct  interpretation  of  its 
statements  individually  and  collectively.  If  the  making  of  a 
system  of  theology  from  the  word  of  God  be  thus  important  and 
indispensable,  and  if  for  this  purpose  it  be  necessary  that  men 
should  prepare  themselves  by  all  appropriate  means  for  an  accurate 
investigation  of  the  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  and 
should  be  habitually  engaged  in  interpreting  it,  it  is  of  course 
right  that  at  the  proper  time  they  should  give  some  attention 
to  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  by  others  to  form  a  system 
of  theology,  or  to  set  forth  and  expound  the  scheme  of  divine  truth 
as  unfolded  in  the  sacred  Scriptures — in  other  words,  that  they 
should  read  and  examine  some  of  the  most  approved  works  called 
systems,  taking  care  to  test  them  by  a  constant  appeal  to  the  word 
of  God. 

There  are  few  comparatively,  where  Christianity  is  known,  who 
are,  in  point  of  fact,  left  to  form  a  system  of  theology  for  them¬ 
selves  from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  the  principles  of  some  system 
or  other  are  usually  inculcated  upon  them  at  an  early  period  of 
their  lives.  The  Shorter  Catechism  is  a  system  of  theology  ;  i.e., 
it  gives  a  systematic  and  connected  exhibition  of  the  principal 
doctrines  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  both  as  to  matters  of  opinion 
and  of  practice ;  and  though  you  may  have  been  instructed  in 
the  Shorter  Catechism,  and  may  have  hitherto  received  its  state- 

C 


34 


SEiJOND  LECTURE. 


ments  without  any  very  careful  examination  of  their  warrant  in 
an  exact  interpretation  of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  yet  you 
can  be  regarded  as  intelligent  Christians,  intelligent  professors  of 
an  orthodox  creed,  only  when  you  have  gone  over  this  ground 
with  the  word  of  God  in  your  hand,  and  have  satisfied  yourselves 
that  the  system  of  theology  which  you  profess,  to  believe  is  really 
founded  upon  and  derived  from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  are 
able  to  give  some  statements  of  the  grounds  of  your  belief  to 
others.  If  this  is  necessary  in  an  intelligent  Christian,  it  is,  of 
course,  much  more  obviously  necessary  in  those  who  aspire  to  be 
the  instructors  of  others  in  the  most  important  of  all  knowledge. 

Systems  of  theology,  all  professing  to  give  a  connected  exhibi¬ 
tion  and  exposition  of  the  principal  truths  of  Scripture,  may 
differ  from  each  other  in  many  respects,  independently  of  that 
w’hich  constitutes  the  most  important  distinction  among  them, 
based  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  representations  they 
give  of  what  the  word  of  God  actually  teaches.  The  Shorter 
Catechism  is,  as  we  have  said,  a  system  of  theology ;  the  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith  is  a  system  of  theology ;  and  a  voluminous  and 
elaborate  work  expounding  the  Confession  of  Faith,  establishing 
all  its  positions  from  a  minute  examination  of  Scriptural  state¬ 
ments,  and  defending  them  against  the  objections  of  adversaries, 
would  also  be  described  by  the  same  designation.  Some  authors 
have  distinguished  systematic  theology  into  theologia  catechetica 
and  theologia  acroamatica,  comprehending  under  the  former  name 
those  briefer  and  simpler  summaries  of  Christian  truth  which  are 
intended  for  the  young  and  those  of  weaker  capacity,  and  are 
usually  put  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer ;  and  under  the 
latter  those  more  extended  and  elaborate  works  which  are  com¬ 
posed  of  a  series  of  dissertations  or  discussions  upon  the  leading 
doctrines  of  Scripture.  Any  book  discussing  fully  any  one  of  the 
leading  doctrines  of  Scripture  may  be  said,  in  a  sense,  to  be  a 
work  that  may  be  classed  under  the  head  of  systematic  theology ; 
but  the  term  is  usually  restricted  so  as  to  include  only  those  works 
which  profess  to  give,  more  or  less  fully,  a  view  of  all  the  leading 
doctrines  of  God’s  oracles,  and  in  this  way  to  furnish  an  exposition, 
more  or  less  complete,  of  all  those  great  and  infinitely  important 
topics  on  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  which  men’s  salvation 
depends. 


DIVTSWX  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


35 


Systematic  theology  is  sometimes  ranked  under  the  two  heads 
of  doctrinal  or  theoretic,  and  moral  or  practical  theology,  a  dis¬ 
tinction  corresponding  exactly  to  one  with  which  you  are  familiar, 
under  the  heads  of  what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and 
what  duty  God  requires  of  man ;  and  though,  as  we  have  said, 
some  writers  use  the  terms  dogmatic  or  thetic  theology  in  the 
same  extent  of  meaning  as  that  expressed  by  systematic  theology, 
it  ought  also  to  be  mentioned  that  some  writers  use  these  terms 
of  dogmatic  or  thetic,  as  comprehending  only  doctrinal  or  theoretic, 
as  distinguished  from  moral  or  practical  theology.  There  is  a 
still  more  limited  use  of  the  wmrds  doctrine  and  doctrinal,  as  con¬ 
nected  with  this  subject,  that  may  be  adverted  to.  We  sometimes 
speak  of  the  doctrine,  worship,  government,  and  discipline  of  the 
church,  as  distinguished  from  each  other,  and  the  distinction  is 
necessary  and  useful ;  and  yet  worship,  government,  and  dis¬ 
cipline,  i.e.  the  truths  taught  in  the  word  of  God  regarding  these 
matters,  are  of  course  comprehended  under  the  general  head  of 
dogmatic  or  doctrinal  theology,  and  form  an  important  part  of 
all  the  ordinary  systematic  works.  God’s  word  teaches  certain 
doctrines  or  principles,  in  regard  to  the  way  in  which  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  the  church  of  Christ  ought  to  be  performed,  its  govern¬ 
ment  administered,  and  its  whole  affairs  conducted  ;  and  the 
doctrines  of  God’s  word  upon  these  points,  as  well  as  upon  others, 
should  of  course  be  embodied  in,  and  form  a  part  of,  any  system 
of  dogmatic  or  doctrinal  theology.  Where  a  distinction  is  made, 
as  is  sometimes  necessary,  between  doctrine  on  the  one  hand,  and 
worship,  government,  and  discipline  on  the  other,  doctrine  is  then 
used  as  comprehending  those  truths  of  Scripture  which  bear  more 
immediately  upon  the  personal  character  and  personal  salvation 
of  men  individually,  while  the  other  divisions  comprehend  those 
truths,  of  inferior  importance  indeed,  but  still  most  valuable  and 
necessary  to  be  known,  as  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  which 
unfold  the  character  and  constitution,  and  ought  therefore  to 
regulate  the  conduct,  of  the  believers  in  revelation  collectively, 
or  of  the  church  of  Christ,  viewed  as  a  society  or  organised  union. 


LECTURE  III. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


rjiHEOLOGIA  polemica,  or  'elenchtica,  of  course  means  theo¬ 
logy  discussed  in  such  a  way  as  to  communicate  information 
concerning  the  controversies  that  have  taken  place  in  the  church 
of  Christ  in  regard  to  the  various  subjects  that  are  unfolded  in  the 
word  of  God,  and  to  convince  of  their  errors  those  who  hold  unsound 
views  upon  any  of  these  topics.  The  only  legitimate  weapons  of 
theological  warfare  are  those  which  are  not  carnal  but  spiritual — 
those  which  are  fitted  to  impress  the  understanding  and  to  affect  the 
heart,  and  they  ought  to  be  employed  in  such  a  way  as  to  prepossess 
and  not  to  prejudice,  to  attract  and  not  to  repel,  for  the  wrath  of  man 
worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God.  Erroneous  views  have  been 
propounded  and  maintained  upon  every  topic  comprehended  in 
Christian  theology.  The  word  of  God,  as  the  apostle  informs  us, 
was  intended  to  be  profitable  for  reproof  and  correction,  as  well  as 
for  doctrine  and  instruction,  and  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  per¬ 
fect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  every  good  work,  it  is  necessary 
that  he  should  be  able  to  apply  the  word  for  the  confutation  of 
error  as  well  as  for  the  establishment  of  truth.  As  all  the  errors 
which  have  been  broached  upon  theological  subjects  profess  to 
receive  countenance  from  Scripture,  it  is  necessary,  in  our  study  of 
the  Bible  for  ourselves,  and  in  our  exposition  of  it  for  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  others,  to  have  some  respect  to  the  object  of  convincing 
gainsayers,  of  shewing  that  their  errors  are  founded  upon  the  mis¬ 
interpretation  of  Scriptural  statements,  and  that  the  word  of  God, 
when  rightly  interpreted,  establishes  doctrines  which  are  incon¬ 
sistent  with,  and  exclusive  of,  the  errors  that  have  been  broached. 
Polemic  or  elenchtic  theology  is  just  the  systematic  and  connected 
application  of  the  statements  of  Scripture  rightly  interpreted  to  the 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


37 


confutation  of  error,  and  with  this  there  is  naturally  connected  the 
history  of  the  controversies  which  have  agitated  the  Christian 
church,  and  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  leading  doctrines 
of  Scripture  have  at  different  times  been  assailed  and  defended; 
a  subject  which  opens  up  a  wide  field  of  interesting  study  and 
investigation,  but  which  belongs  rather  to  historical  than  to 
systematic  theology.  Some  of  the  great  leading  works  on  polemic 
theology,  such  as  the  valuable  work  of  Turretine,  follow  the  ordi¬ 
nary  arrangement  of  the  common  works  on  systematic  theology, 
and  are  chiefly  occupied,  under  the  various  heads  as  they  occur, 
with  the  confutation  of  the  errors  that  have  been  broached  in 
opposition  to  sound  doctrine.  Other  works  on  the  same  general 
subject,  and  directed  to  the  same  object,  such  as  Hoornbeek’s 
Summa  Controversiarum,  and  Elenchus  Controversiarum,  have 
taken  up  the  leading  controversies  which  have  agitated  the  church, 
in  chronological  order,  or  on  some  other  principle  of  arrangement, 
such  as  the  Arian,  the  Popish,  the  Arminian,  the  Socinian  con¬ 
troversies,  and  have  combined  a  scriptural  confutation  of  the 
errors,  with  a  historical  investigation  of  the  circumstances  con¬ 
nected  with  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  error,  the  discussions  to 
which  it  gave  rise,  and  the  practical  effects  which  resulted.  While 
others  again,  such  as  Stapfer’s  Theologia  Polemica,  combine  both 
these  methods.  There  are  some  controversies,  or  rather  errors 
or  systems  of  errors,  which,  it  may  be  under  different  names  and 
aspects,  have  disturbed  the  church  and  injured  the  interests  of 
religion  from  a  very  early  period  down  even  to  the  present  day. 
With  the  history  of  these  errors,  and  the  best  mode  of  applying 
the  word  of  God  to  the  confutation  of  them,  every  well-instructed 
theologian  ought  to  be  acquainted.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
degree  of  time  and  attention  which  it  may  be  proper  to  devote 
to  particular  controversies,  both  scripturally  and  historically,  should 
be  regulated  to  some  extent  by  a  regard  to  the  circumstances  in 
which  men’s  lot  may  be  cast,  and  the  condition  of  the  church  and 
the  world  at  the  time ;  and  the  circumstances  under  which  our  lot 
has  been  cast  in  providence,  very  plainly  indicate  that  in  so  far  as 
we  may  have  the  means  and  the  opportunity  of  studying  polemic 
theology,  we  are  called  upon  to  give  special  attention  to  the  study 
of  the  Pelagian  controversy,  the  Popish  controversy,  and  the  Pre- 
latic  controversy,  understanding  by  the  Prelatic  controversy  the 


38 


THIRD  LECTURE. 


whole  system  of  high-church  heresies  and  errors,  the  prevalence  of 
which,  in  our  day,  has  so  grievously  injured  and  so  deeply  dis¬ 
graced  the  Prelatic  churches  of  this  country. 

Some  writers  have  assigned  a  separate  designation  to  a  certain 
department  of  theological  science  under  the  name  of  theologia 
symholica,  which,  however,  like  the  theologia  polemica,  belongs 
partly  to  systematic  and  partly  to  historical  theology.  This  name 
is  derived  from  the  Greek  word  which  signifies  either  a 

joint  contribution,  or  a  bond  of  union,  and  which  has  been  em¬ 
ployed  to  describe  the  confessions  and  other  standard  books  ot 
particular  churches,  hence  usually  called  Libri  Symbolici.  Sym¬ 
bolic  theology,  therefore,  means  an  investigation  into  the  Confes¬ 
sions  and  other  standards  or  symbols  of  the  different  branches  of 
the  Church  of  Christ.  Confessions  of  faith,  authorised  creeds  and 
catechisms,  and  other  symbolic  books  prepared,  sanctioned,  and  set 
forth  by  particular  churches,  are  just  brief  and  compendious 
systems  of  theology  professedly  derived  from  the  word  of  God, 
exhibiting  the  interpretation  which  the  particular  church  adopting 
them  has  taken  of  the  general  tenor  of  Scriptural  statement,  and, 
of  course,  to  be  tried  and  examined  like  all  other  human  compo¬ 
sitions  by  the  only  unerring  standard,  the  word  of  God.  They  are 
usually  of  more  value  than  a  system  of  theology  prepared  and 
digested  by  individuals,  however  eminent,  for  this  reason,  that  they 
have  been  commonly  prepared  with  more  care,  and  subjected  to  a 
stricter  scrutiny  by  a  greater  number  of  minds.  And  they  are  of 
more  importance  historically,  as  it  may  be  supposed  that  they  con¬ 
vey  valuable  indications  of  the  state  of  the  church  which  adopted 
them,  and  that  they  have  also  exerted  a  considerable  influence 
upon  the  opinions  of  men.  The  history  of  the  events  connected 
with  the  formation  of  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  different 
churches — and  all  this  is  comprehended  under  the  head  of  theo¬ 
logia  symbolica — forms  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important 
departments  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  is  fitted  to  afford  valu¬ 
able  instruction.  What  a  light,  for  instance,  is  thrown  upon  the 
history  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  upon  many  important  topics  in 
the  Popish  controversy,  by  Father  Paul’s  history  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  where  the  principal  symbolic  books  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
were  composed ;  and  who  would  not  feel  it  to  be  both  a  duty  and 
a  privilege  to  become  familiar  with  the  history  of  that  famous 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


39 


assembly  that  was  honoured  of  God  to  prepare  those  wonderful 
works  which  are  still  the  symbolic  books  of  almost  all  the  Presby¬ 
terians  who  speak  the  English  language,  and  who  both  in  the  old 
world  and  in  the  new  include,  we  presume  to  think,  the  soundest 
and  most  important  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ? 

The  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Churches  are  the 
most  important  and  valuable  body  of  documents  which  have  been 
given  to  the  world  since  the  apostolic  age,  and  ought  certainly  to 
be  examined  at  some  period  of  their  studies  by  all  who  wish  to  be 
acquainted  with  theological  science.  They  are  not  so  accessible 
in  this  country  as  they  should  be.  The  only  collection  of  them 
which  has  been  published  in  this  country  in  modern  times  is 
called  Sylloge  Confessionum.  It  was  published  at  the  Clarendon 
Press  at  Oxford,  and  is  not  very  complete.  Much  fuller  and  more 
complete  collections  of  these  Confessions  have  been  published  on 
the  Continent,  especially  by  Augusti  and  Meineger.  A  transla¬ 
tion  into  English  of  an  old  collection  of  the  Confessions  of  the 
Reformed  Churches — Hall’s  translation  of  the  Harmony  of  the 
Confessions — has  recently  been  published  in  this  country,  and 
this  may  serve  some  useful  popular  purposes ;  but  in  regard  to 
documents  where  every  word  was  carefully  weighed,  and  where 
much  may  depend  in  investigating  their  meaning  upon  the  precise 
terms  employed,  no  one  who  is  able  to  understand  them  in  the 
original  Latin  should  be  satisfied  with  a  translation. 

The  English  language,  though  it  contains  many  valuable  works 
on  particular  doctrines  and  on  separate  subjects  in  systematic 
theology,  contains  comparatively  very  few  systems ;  i.e.  very  few 
works  in  which  all  the  leading  doctrines  of  Christianity  are 
arranged  in  systematic  order,  proved  from  the  word  of  God,  and 
their  connections  and  relations  pointed  out.  Systems  of  theology 
have  been  chiefly  the  productions  of  Continental  writers,  and  are 
to  be  found  principally  in  the  Latin  language, — one  fact  among 
many  others  of  a  similar  kind,  which  establishes  the  necessity  of 
students  of  theology  acquiring  the  capacity  of  reading  Latin  with 
perfect  ease  and  readiness.  Systematic  theology,  however,  has 
been  always  a  good  deal  studied  by  Scottish  Presbyterians ;  and 
indeed  Bishop  Burnet  alleges  that  the  Presbyterian  ministers  of 
the  era  of  the  Restoration  had  for  their  principal  learning  an 
acquaintance  with  the  systematic  writers  of  the  Continent.  No 


40 


THIRD  LECTURK 


one  certainly  could  charge  his  Episcopalian  friends  with  any  great 
acquaintance  with  systematic  writers ;  for  in  the  Church  of 
England  the  study  of  systematic  theology  has  always  been,  and 
still  is,  grievously  neglected.  Calvin,  Turretine,  Maestricht, 
Pictet,  Marckius,  and  Witsius,  are  the  authors  who  have  been 
most  generally  studied  in  Scotland  as  writers  on  systematic 
theology  ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  study  of  the  writings 
of  these  men  has  tended  greatly  to  promote  correct  and  compre¬ 
hensive  views  of  the  scheme  of  divine  truth.  Hill’s  Lectures,  and 
Dick’s  Lectures,  two  systems  of  theology  recently  published  in  our 
own  country,  are  both  highly  respectable  and  valuable  books, 
though  their  merits  are  of  different  kinds ;  but  they  are  scarcely 
sufficient  of  themselves  to  render  necessary  any  modification  of 
the  statement  we  have  made,  that  the  English  language  does  not 
contain  a  great  deal,  comparatively  speaking,  that  is  of  much 
value  in  the  way  of  systems  of  theology.  Let  me  again  remind 
you,  before  leaving  the  subject,  that  the  correct  interpretation  of 
the  statements  of  Scripture  is  the  basis  of  all  sound  theological 
knowledge,  and  that  therefore  the  main  business,  the  principal 
occupation,  of  all  who  have  resolved  to  devote  themselves  to  theo¬ 
logical  studies,  should  be  the  exegesis  of  the  Bible,  the  constant 
and  unwearied  application  of  all  appropriate  means,  of  all  the 
resources  of  exegetical  theology,  to  the  great  object  of  ascertaining 
the  exact  meaning  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  word  of 
God.  It  is  undoubtedly  the  duty  of  the  student  of  theology 
diligently  to  compare  the  statements  of  Scripture  together,  not 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  thereby  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the 
individual  statements,  but  also  of  discovering  and  establishing  the 
whole  mind  of  God  as  revealed  upon  each  topic ;  in  other  words, 
systematizing,  or  forming  a  system  of  theology.  But  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  every  attempt  at  system-making  must  be  useless, 
and  worse  than  useless,  which  is  not  regulated  throughout  by  a 
constant  appeal  to  Scripture  as  the  only  rule  or  standard,  and  that 
systems  of  theology,  human  compositions  professing  to  give  a 
systematic  exposition  of  the  contents  of  Scripture,  are  of  no  proper 
authority  in  themselves,  and  are  to  be  followed  only  in  so  far  as 
they  are  in  accordance  with  the  statements  of  Scripture  correctly 
explained  ;  that  to  make  a  system  of  theology,  or  to  advocate  and 
defend  one,  without  having  carefully  investigated,  and  being  able  to 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


41 


establish  its  soundness  in  all  its  parts  from  a  correct  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  is  just  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  fabri¬ 
cate  systems  of  natural  science  without  having  correctly  ascer¬ 
tained,  by  observation  and  experiment,  the  facts  and  phenomena 
of  nature ;  is  much  more  injurious  to  ourselves,  by  reason  of  the 
infinitely  greater  importance  of  the  subject,  and  the  greater  guilt 
and  evil  of  error ;  and  more  dishonouring  to  God,  as  involving  a 
refusal  to  make  a  right  use  and  application  of  that  word  which 
he  has  magnified  above  all  his  works,  and  which  is  the  only  rule 
to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him. 

8.  Historical  Theology.  This,  of  course,  just  describes  an  inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  events  which  have  taken  place  in,  or  connected 
with,  the  church,  or  the  propagation  of  true  religion  in  the  world, 
with  the  exhibition  of  the  light  which  these  events  are  fitted  to 
cast  both  on  doctrine  and  duty.  A  large  portion  of  the  inspired 
word  of  God  consists  of  history ;  and  this  fact  of  itself  proves,  what 
experience  abundantly  confirms,  that  history,  rightly  viewed  and 
applied,  is  fitted  to  convey  important  religious  instruction.  The 
inspired  histories  contained  in  the  Bible  are  intended,  among  other 
things,  to  shew  us  how  the  events  which  occur  in  God’s  providence 
ought  to  be  viewed,  and  how  they  ought  to  be  recorded.  The 
events  which  constitute  the  history  of  the  church  and  the  world, 
whether  recorded  in  sacred  or  in  profane  history,  whether  occurring 
in  ancient  or  in  modern  times,  are  the  Lord’s  doing,  and  are  to  be 
traced  to  the  operation  of  his  baud.  In  them  all  he  has  mani¬ 
fested  his  character  and  the  principles  of  his  moral  government. 
He  has  been  executing  his  decrees  and  effecting  his  purposes. 
The  extent  to  which  he  may  have  been  pleased,  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners,  directly  to  reveal  himself,  or  to  interpose 
in  an  extraordinary  and  miraculous  way,  does  not  materially  affect 
the  real  character  of  his  agency  and  the  great  general  principles 
which  regulate  it,  though  these  special  interpositions  served  some 
important  purposes  both  temporary  and  permanent.  We  have  no 
doubt  that  the  inspired  histories  contained  in  the  word  of  God  are 
intended  partly  to  be  full-length  exhibitions  of  the  way  in  which 
God  always  governs  the  world,  and  that  holy  men  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  give  us  these  histories  in  order  that,  having 
God’s  own  account  of  some  important  departments  of  his  providen¬ 
tial  dealings,  we  might  apply  the  great  general  principles  there 


42 


THIRD  LECTURE, 


unfolded,  at  once  to  aid  us  in  regulating  our  conduct  and  in 

estimating  and  applying  aright  what  he  has  been  always  doing  in 

the  o-overnment  of  the  church  and  the  world,  even  where  there  was 
& 

no  admixture  of  miraculous  interposition,  and  where  there  is  no 
inspired  history  to  assist  us  in  the  improvement  we  ought  to  make 
of  the  events  observed  or  recorded.  The  account  of  the  earlier 
portions  of  the  history  of  our  race  and  of  the  church — -for  under 
the  name  of  the  history  of  the  church  may  be  comprehended  the 
whole  of  God’s  dealings  with  men  bearing  upon  the  subject  of 
their  salvation,  from  the  fall  of  man  and  the  first  promise  of  a 
Saviour — is  to  be  found  only  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is  a 
position  which  some  authors,  in  proving  the  authenticity  of  the 
Bible,  and  particularly  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  in  the  first  book  of  his 
Origines  Sacrce,  have  fully  and  formally  established,  that  we  have 
no  other  records  of  these  periods  of  the  history  of  the  world  which 
are  entitled  to  credit,  or  on  which  reliance  can  be  placed.  But 
even  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  history,  there  is  information 
to  be  derived  from  other  sources  which  ought  not  to  be  neglected, 
and  which  is  fitted  to  cast  light  upon  what  is  there  made  known 
to  us.  This  is  increasingly  true  as  the  inspired  history  descends 
to  those  periods  when  we  have  something  like  authentic  history 
from  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  as  was  the  case  more  particularly 
in  the  age  of  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  This,  however,  refers 
rather  to  the  application  of  general  history  to  the  elucidation  of  the 
inspired  histories  contained  in  the  Bible ;  while  historical  theology 
rather  comprehends  the  history  of  the  church  itself.  After  God’s 
revelation  had  been  completed,  after  the  scheme  of  divine  truth 
had  been  fully  unfolded,  when  the  wall  of  partition  had  been 
broken  down ;  efforts  were  made,  in  accordance  with  God’s  direc¬ 
tions  and  under  his  special  superintendence,  for  diffusing  over  the 
world  the  knowledge  of  the  only  scheme  of  salvation,  when  dis¬ 
cussions  arose  about  the  meaning  of  God’s  completed  revelation, 
and  when  the  efforts  for  the  propagation  of  divine  truth  and  the 
controversies  about  its  meaning  and  application  exerted  an  import¬ 
ant  influence  not  only  on  the  state  of  the  church  but  of  the  world. 
All  this  is  a  most  interesting  and  useful  field  of  investigation,  both 
in  its  connection  with  the  fulfilment  of  scriptural  prophecies,  and 
as  casting  much  light  indirectly  upon  the  import  and  use  of  scrip¬ 
tural  truth,  and  affording  useful  lessons  for  the  regulation  of  the 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


43 


conduct  of  churches  and  individuals.  But  vve  do  not  presume  to 
enlarge  upon  the  importance  and  value  of  the  study  of  ecclesiastical 
history,  or  the  way  in  which  the  investigation  of  it  ought  to  he 
conducted,  for  that  subject  is  treated  in  this  College  by  one^  whose 
ability,  judgment,  and  learning  pre-eminently  qualify  him  for  the 
task.  My  object  at  present  is  simply  to  warn  you  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  your  studies  that  in  historical  theology,  or  in  the 
history  of  the  church  and  of  its  doctrines,  there  is  a  wide  and 
extensive  field  which  you  are  called  upon  to  traverse,  from  which 
important  and  useful  lessons  are  to  be  learned,  which  it  is  at  once 
danorerous  and  discreditable  for  a  theologian  or  a  minister  of  the 
gospel  to  be  ignorant  of,  which  it  requires  a  good  deal  of  reading 
and  research  to  master,  and  which  therefore  at  some  period  of  your 
studies  is  well  entitled  to  a  considerable  portion  of  your  time  and 
attention. 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  mention  that  polemic  and 
symbolic  theology  belong  partly  to  the  department  of  systematic 
and  partly  to  that  of  historical  theology,  as  they  are  both  of  them 
connected  at  once  with  the  systematic  exposition  of  the  scheme  of 
divine  truth  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  to  be  deduced  from 
their  statements,  and  to  be  tried  by  their  authority,  and  with  the 
facts  or  events  relating  to  the  prosecution  of  controversies,  and 
the  formation  and  adoption  of  creeds  and  confessions.  There  is  a 
subject  that  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  ranking  under  the  general 
head  of  historical  theology,  though  a  distinct  name  and  place  has 
been  sometimes  assigned  to  it  by  theological  writers,  viz..  Patristic 
Theology,  or  that  which  treats  of  the  writings  and  doctrines  of  the 
Fathers.  The  Fathers,  you  are  aware,  is  a  name  usually  given  to 
the  Christian  writers  on  theological  subjects,  who  flourished  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  church.  There  is  no  very  definite  understanding 
as  to  how  far  down  in  the  history  of  the  church  this  name  ought 
to  be  applied  to  the  leading  Christian  writers,  some  classing  under 
this  designation  ecclesiastical  authors  down  till  about  the  twelfth 
century,  when  the  Fathers  were  succeeded  by  the  schoolmen  ;  and 
others  with  more  propriety  restricting  it  to  those  who  lived  and 
wrote  during  the  first  six  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
general  subject  of  patristic  theology,  including  an  examination  of 
the  authority  or  respect  due  to  the  opinions  of  the  early  Christian 

^  The  late  Hev.  Dr  Welsh. — Ed. 


44 


TIIIRI)  LECTURE. 


authors,  the  benefits  to  he  derived  from  the  study  of  their  works, 
and  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  ought  to  be  studied, 
interpreted,  and  applied,  has  at  different  periods  been  a  good  deal 
discussed  among  theologians.  And  the  circumstances  of  the 
church  in  our  day  are  such  as  to  render  it  not  unreasonable  for 
students  of  divinity  and  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  give  somewhat 
more  attention  to  the  department  of  patristic  theology  than  might 
have  been  necessary  or  expedient  in  the  last  generation.  The 
fundamentals  of  sound  theological  knowledge,  the  necessary  quali¬ 
fications  for  a  minister  of  the  gospel  becoming  a  workman  that 
needs  not  to  be  ashamed,  are  at  all  times  substantially  the  same. 
But  the  particular  condition  of  the  church,  the  views  that  may 
happen  to  be  prevalent,  or  at  least  to  occupy  a  considerable  share 
of  men’s  attention,  may  render  it  sometimes  necessary  for  ministers 
to  give  a  degree  of  study  and  consideration  to  particular  depart¬ 
ments  of  theological  literature  and  science,  that  may  not  be  in 
exact  proportion  to  their  permanent  intrinsic  importance.  And 
on  this  ground  it  is  right  that  ministers  in  the  present  generation 
should  know  something  more  of  the  Fathers,  or  at  least  about 
them,  than  it  was  in  the  last.  All  popish  priests  are  sworn  that 
they  will  never  receive  or  interpret  Scripture  except  according 
to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.”  And  hence  the 
Fathers  must  always  occupy  a  place  of  some  importance  in  the 
popish  controversy.  Prelacy  is  based  by  some  of  its  most  able 
and  learned  defenders,  exclusively  upon  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  though  it  certainly  derives  no  more  countenance  from 
the  genuine  writings  of  the  earliest  Fathers  than  it  does  from  the 
word  of  God.  And  in  the  present  day  a  body  of  men  who  are 
possessed  of  some  talent  and  learning,  and  whose  labours  and 
writings  have  materially  affected  some  branches  of  the  Church, 
and  have  largely  occupied  the  thoughts  and  influenced  the 
opinions  of  men,  have  endeavoured  to  set  up  the  Fathers  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  as  the  great  oracles  from  whom  the 
church  of  Christ  ought  practically  to  receive  her  faith  in  matters 
of  doctrine,  government,  worship,  and  discipline.  On  all  these 
grounds  it  is  desirable  in  the  present  day  that  ministers  of  the 
gospel  should  acquire  such  a  knowledge  of  patristic  theology  as 
may  enable  them  intelligently  to  form  and  to  vindicate  sound 
views  upon  these  subjects,  and  to  take  some  part,  according  as  they 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


45 


may  be  called  upon,  publicly  or  privately,  in  defending  the  truth 
of  God  from  the  assaults  which,  through  the  Fathers,  have  been 
directed  against  it. 

But  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that,  independently  of  these  tem¬ 
porary  and  special  grounds,  there  are  sufficient  reasons  why  at 
all  times  some  degree  of  attention  should  be  given  to  patristic 
theology.  The  writings  of  the  Fathers  are  the  sources  of  the 
history  of  the  early  church,  and  thus  must  always  be  an  object  of 
interest  as  well  as  a  source  of  useful  information.  Every  one  feels 
that  it  is  an  object  of  most  reasonable  curiosity  to  know  some¬ 
thing  of  the  views,  character,  and  conduct  of  those  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  the  inspired  apostles  of  our  Lord  in  the  administration  of 
the  church's  affairs,  and  we  may  reasonably  expect  to  find  in 
their  works  some  materials  for  acquiring  additional  information 
concerning  the  history  of  the  apostles  themselves.  The  writings 
of  the  Fathers  occupy  an  important  place  in  the  general  argument 
establishing  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  not  as  if  we  rested  anything  on  their  mere 
authority,  or  believed  any  doctrine  ourselves,  or  called  upon 
others  to  believe  it,  merely  because  the  Fathers  believed  it,  but 
because  their  testimony  as  witnesses  establishes  some  points  which 
cannot  be  established  in  any  other  way,  and  this  upon  ordinary 
recognised  principles  of  evidence  equally  applicable  to  other 
authors  similarly  situated  in  relation  to  the  points  to  be  proved, 
and  quite  independently  of  any  peculiar  authority  that  may  be 
claimed  for  them.  The  writings  of  some  of  the  Fathers,  although 
not  many,  are  possessed  of  such  intrinsic  worth  and  excellence  as, 
independently  of  any  extrinsic  or  collateral  considerations,  entitle 
them  to  a  perusal  among  other  useful  and  valuable  works  in 
different  departments  of  theological  science.  I  would  certainly 
regard  it  as  indicating  a  want  of  enlightened  interest  in  theo¬ 
logical  study,  if  you  did  not  in  the  course  of  your  studies  take 
care  to  peruse  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  Fathers,  i.e.  those 
who  lived  with  and  immediately  after  the  apostles ;  and  it  would 
probably  neither  be  unreasonable  nor  unprofitable,  if  you  had 
suitable  opportunities,  that  you  should  peruse  the  principal 
writings  of  the  Fathers  during  the  first  three  centuries,  concluding 
with  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Eusebius,  which  is  the  first 
regular  history  of  the  church  during  the  early  ages,  and  contains 


46 


THIRD  LECTURE, 


a  good  deal  of  information  upon  this  subject,  for  which  we  are 
indebted  to  him  alone.  To  read  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of 
course  requires  considerable  familiarity  with  the  languages,  the 
Greek  and  Latin,  in  which  they  were  written,  although  some  of 
them  have  been  translated  into  English. 

A  prodigious  mass  of  literature  has  been  collected  illustrative 
of  patristic  theology,  comprehending  the  history  of  the  Fathers  and 
of  their  works,  discussions  as  to  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of 
the  writings  ascribed  to  them,  and  as  to  the  views  which  they 
collectively  and  individually  entertained  upon  all  the  leading 
doctrines  of  theology.  We  have,  for  example,  a  very  learned 
quarto  by  Dailld,  a  celebrated  divine  of  the  French  Protestant 
Church,  to  prove  that  the  short  and  not  very  valuable  letters 
usually  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  one  of  the  apostolic  Fathers  (whom 
some  Episcopalians  call  Archbishop  of  Antioch  and  Primate  of 
all  Syria),  are  spurious ;  and  we  have  another  equally  learned  and 
still  more  bulky  quarto  by  Bishop  Pearson  to  prove,  in  opposition 
to  Dailld,  that  these  same  letters  are  genuine.  And  were  you  to 
go  fully  into  this  question  about  the  genuineness  of  these  letters, 
and  to  read  all  that  has  been  written  upon  it,  it  might  probably 
occupy  you  for  nearly  half  the  session.  The  books  which  have 
been  written  on  both  sides  of  the  question  as  to  what  were  the 
views  of  the  generality  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  i.e.  those  who 
flourished  before  the  Council  of  Nice  in  the  early  part  of  the 
fourth  century,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  and  upon  all  the 
leading  points  involved  in  the  popish  controversy,  including 
church  government,  have  been  endless — voluminous  almost  beyond 
the  possibility  of  being  overtaken.  With  all  this  rnass  of  matter, 
which  may  be  comprehended  under  the  head  of  patristic  theology, 
it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  students  should  be  very  familiar, 
because  during  the  brief  period  usually  devoted  to  theological 
study,  they  have  many  much  more  important  matters  to  occupy 
their  attention.  But  if  any  of  you,  after  acquiring  a  creditable 
acquaintance  with  those  branches  of  knowledge  that  are  indis¬ 
pensable  to  a  minister,  should  have  inclination  and  opportunity 
to  give  particular  attention  to  these  topics  comprehended  under 
the  theologia  patristica,  you  would  find  it  an  interesting  and 
useful  occupation;  and  it  is  certain  that  in  no  department  of 
theological  literature  will  you  find  a  greater  number  of  works 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


47 


written  by  men  of  the  very  highest  ability  and  learning.  It  is 
an  insult  both  to  God  and  to  men  to  hold  up  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  of  any  age  or  period  as  the  standard  by  which  we  ought 
to  be  guided,  or  as  possessed  of  any  authority  over  our  opinions 
or  conduct.  It  is  insulting  to  God,  because  it  virtually  sets  aside, 
or  at  least  depreciates,  his  word,  which  he  plainly  intended  to  be 
our  only  standard,  and  which  with  divine  wisdom  he  has  fitted 
for  that  purpose  ;  and  it  is  insulting  to  men  to  ask  them  to  submit 
to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  when  it  can  be  easily  established 
that  those  men  had  not  either  collectively  or  individually  any¬ 
thing  about  them  to  qualify  or  entitle  them  to  exercise  such 
authority,  and  that  they  differ  so  much  from  each  other  in  the 
views  which  they  hold,  and  in  the  interpretation  which  they  put 
upon  scriptural  statements.  Indeed  there  is  no  department  of 
theological  science  with  regard  to  which  the  Fathers  were 
manifestly  less  entitled  to  respect  and  deference  than  that  in 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  exalted  them  into  an  infallible 
and  exclusive  standard,  viz.,  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  For 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  early  Fathers  as  a  whole,  and, 
speaking  generally,  were  most  miserable  interpreters  of  Scripture  ; 
and  there  are  very  few  books  more  useful  in  forming  an  estimate 
of  the  respect  due  to  the  Fathers  than  a  treatise  of  Whitby’s, 
entitled,  “  Dissertatio  de  Sacrarum  Scrip turarum  interpretatione 
secundum  Patrum  Commentaries,’^  in  which  he  goes  over  the 
books  of  Scripture  in  order,  and  adduces  upon  all  the  leading 
passages  some  palpably  erroneous,  or  ridiculously  absurd,  inter¬ 
pretations  of  them  which  have  been  put  forth  by  some  of  the 
most  eminent  of  the  Fathers.  Milton’s  general  description  of  the 
Fathers  :  “  Whatsoever  time  or  the  needless  hand  of  blind  chance 
hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  this  present,  in  her  huge  drag¬ 
net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shells  or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen, 
— these  are  the  fathers.”^ 

It  is  altogether  marvellous,  and  can  be  ascribed  only  to  the 
agency  and  the  extraordinary  activity  of  the  father  of  lies,  that  in 
our  own  age  and  country  so  many  men  of  intelligence  and  learn¬ 
ing,  so  many  men  holding  the  office  of  ministers  in  a  Protestant 
church,  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  young  men  educated  at 
English  universities,  should  have  enslaved  their  understandings 

*  “  Prelatical  Episcopacy.” 


48 


THIRD  LECTURE. 


and  their  consciences  to  the  Nicene  Fathers,  and  should  virtually 
call  upon  the  churches  of  Christ  to  discard  the  word  of  God,  and 
take  as  their  rule  and  standard  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
church  in  the  fourth  century.  But  this  state  of  things  does, 
nevertheless,  make  it  the  duty  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  or  at 
least  of  those  of  them  who  may  have  the  means  and  opportunity, 
to  acquire  the  more  knowledge  of  Patristic  theology  that  they 
may  more  fully  understand  the  danger  to  which  the  church  of 
Christ  is  at  present  exposed,  and  be  able  more  completely  to  guard 
against  it. 

When  this  Tractarian  movement  commenced,  its  leading  sup¬ 
porters  were  accustomed  to  allege  that  they  were  the  'only  parties 
who  could  successfully  encounter  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  that  there 
were  certain  great  church  principles,  as  they  called  them,  which 
were  true  and  sound,  and  could  not  be  successfully  controverted  ; 
that  Protestants,  or  as  the  Tractarians  at  first  called  them,  ultra- 
Protestants,  denying  these  principles,  could  not  grapple  with 
Romish  adversaries ;  whereas  they,  conceding  them,  and  thereby, 
forsooth,  taking-  up  an  impregnable  position,  were  able  to  contend 
successfully  against  what  they  then  called  the  Romish  misapplica¬ 
tion  and  abuse  of  them.  When  Tractarian  church  principles  were 
once  conceded,  there  was  not  a  great  deal  in  Popery  worth  fighting 
against,  for  they  overturned  the  true  standard  of  faith  and  the 
gospel  method  of  salvation.  But  besides,  the  recent  admission 
into  the  Romish  church  of  the  most  able  and  consistent  of  the 
party,  must  have  opened  up  even  to  men  of  the  weakest  capacity 
the  futility  of  this  pretence,  and  the  real  character  and  tendency 
of  the  movement.  It  is  now  sufficiently  palpable  that  the  whole 
Tractarian  movement  was  a  mere  device  of  Satan  to  check  the 
progress  of  evangelical  religion,  and  to  strengthen  his  great  scheme 
for  injuring  the  cause  of  Christ;  and  if  there  be  any  who  still 
deny  this,  it  is  because,  as  a  just  punishment  for  their  sinful 
opposition  to  the  truth,  they  have  been  given  up  to  strong  delu¬ 
sion  that  they  should  believe  a  lie. 


LECTURE  IV. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT— ITS  EXTENT. 

JpASTORAL  THEOLOGY.  This  is  the  last  of  the  four 
general  heads  into  which  theological  science  is  usually 
divided,  and,  as  its  name  imports,  it  includes  the  consideration  of  all 
those  subjects  which  bear  upon  the  execution  of  the  functions  of  the 
pastoral  office,  and  the  right  discharge  of  pastoral  duty.  The  great 
object  of  your  studies  in  this  place,  and  the  object  also,  I  trust,  of 
your  fervent  aspirations  and  your  earnest  prayers,  is,  that  you  may 
be  fitted  and  prepared  for  becoming  preachers  of  the  word,  minis¬ 
ters  of  the  gospel,  pastors  of  Christian  flocks,  and  stewards  of 
the  mysteries  of  God,  and  that,  through  the  right  discharge  of  these 
duties,  you  may  be  instrumental  in  promoting  the  glory  of  God 
in  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the  edification  of  saints.  By  a 
respect  to  this  end  you  should  be  habitually  animated.  The  con¬ 
templation  of  this  should  impress  you  with  a  deep  feeling  of 
responsibility,  and  stir  you  up  to  the  utmost  zeal,  diligence,  and 
self-denial  in  the  formation  of  your  character,  and  in  the  improve¬ 
ment  of  all  your  opportunities.  The  main  work  of  the  gospel 
ministry,  the  chief  occupation  of  all  who  devote  themselves  to  the 
promotion  of  God’s  glory  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  is  to  make  known 
to  men  the  will  of  God  revealed  in  his  word,  to  do  this  in  such  a 
spirit,  in  such  a  manner,  and  with  such  accompaniments,  as  may 
afford  the  best  ground  to  expect  that  these  labours  will  be  suc¬ 
cessful;  in  other  words,  that  God  will  make  them  instrumental  in 
turning  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  himself.  The  first  and  fundamental  thino^  therefore  in  contem- 
plating  the  pastoral  office  is,  that  you  do  really  and  honestly  desire 
to  effect,  or  to  be  instrumental  in  effecting,  the  great  objects  which 

D 


50 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


the  pastoral  office  was  designed  to  effect,  i.e.  to  promote  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the  edification  of 
saints;  that  you  be  so  desirous  to  effect  this,  and  so  impressed 
with  its  importance,  as  to  be  ready  cheerfully  to  do  and  to  bear  all 
that  may  be  needful,  1st,  in  order  to  a  right  preparation  for  the 
work,  and  then,  2d,  in  order  to  a  right  prosecution  of  it,  that  both 
now  and  afterwards  you  may  be  ready  to  endure  hardness  as  good 
soldiers  of  Christ  Jesus.  And  the  next  thing  is,  that  you  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  mind  and  will  of  God  as  revealed  in  his 
word,  with  the  true  scheme  of  divine  doctrine  there  unfolded ; 
that  you  may  be  able  to  expound  it  to  others,  and  to  afford  them 
the  most  ample  assistance  in  understanding  and  applying  that 
word  which  alone  is  able  to  make  them  wise  unto  salvation. 
Hence  the  prominence  given  in  your  preparations  for  the  ministry 
to  the  study  of  theology,  i.e.  all  those  subjects,  exercises,  and 
habits  that  may  fit  you  for  rightly  understanding,  interpreting,  and 
applying  the  word  of  God,  bringing  out  from  it,  and  establishing 
by  it,  the  will  of  God  for  men’s  salvation. 

But  the  acquisition  of  the  requisite  knowledge  by  a  man  re¬ 
solved  to  employ  it  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of 
sinners,  is  not  the  only  thing  needful  in  preparing  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry.  There  are  other  topics  bearing  upon  the  work  of 
rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth,  and  the  other  duties  of  the 
pastoral  office ;  and  the  investigation  of  these,  or  the  results  of 
that  investigation  in  the  principles  and  rules  which  the  word  of 
God  and  the  experience  of  his  servants  in  all  ages  suggest  as 
necessary  and  useful,  constitute  pastoral  theology.  The  essential 
qualifications  of  a  gospel  minister,  the  ends  he  is  bound  to  aim 
at,  the  kind  of  means  he  is  to  employ  for  the  attainment  of  these 
ends,  and  the  whole  truth  which  he  is  to  proclaim  in  God’s  name 
for  the  salvation  of  men,  are  to  be  found  in  and  deduced  from  the 
sacred  Scriptures ;  but  as  the  minister  of  the  gospel  has  to  deal 
with  men,  with  their  understandings  and  their  consciences,  it  is 
useful  also  to  consider  what,  according  to  the  constitution  of  man 
and  the  experience  of  the  church,  may  contribute  most  to  a  suc¬ 
cessful  discharge  of  ministerial  duty,  what  are  the  lessons  to  be 
learnt  with  respect  to  the  best  mode  of  prosecuting  the  various 
branches  of  the  work  of  the  pastoral  office,  from  the  practice  or 
the  counsels  of  those  whom  in  different  ages  and  churches  God 


DIVISIO^^  OF  TEE  SUBJECT. 


51 


has  most  highly  honoured  in  promoting  his  cause  and  advancing 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  men.  The  leading  duties  incumbent  upon 
the  pastors  of  Christian  flocks  are  to  preach  the  word,  to  ad¬ 
minister  divine  ordinances,  to  labour  more  privately  among  the 
flock  in  the  inculcation  of  the  divine  truth,  and  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  the  same  object  to  rule  in  Christ’s  house,  i.e.  to  take  part 
in  the  ordinary  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  church  as  a 
visible  society  established  for  certain  ends,  and  to  be  regulated  by 
certain  laws.  The  great  requisites  for  the  right  discharge  of  these 
duties  are,  as  we  have  said,  a  right  state  of  mind  and  heart,  i.e. 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  personal  religious  principle  and  right 
views  of  divine  truth ;  but  still  the  experience  of  God’s  servants, 
and  the  wisdom  which  from  experience  they  have  acquired,  applied 
in  connection  with  the  word  of  God  and  in  subordination  to  his 
authority,  may  afford  useful  assistance. 

The  first  and  leading  branch  of  the  pastoral  office  is  the  preach¬ 
ing  of  the  word,  and  in  addition  to  the  great  primary  question  of 
what  it  is  that  should  be  preached,  viz.  the  truth  of  God  as  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  proper  also  to  give  some  attention 
to  the  consideration  how  it  ought  to  be  preached.  The  apostle 
(2  Tim.  ii.  1-5)  plainly  intimates  that  ministers  who  seek  to  be¬ 
come  workmen  that  need  not  to  be  ashamed,  must  “  rightly  divide 
the  word  of  truth,”  a  statement  which  evidently  implies  that  some 
skill  and  wisdom  such  as  God  approves  of  and  may  ordinarily  be 
expected  to  bless,  may  and  should  be  employed  in  disposing, 
arranging,  and  applying  the  truth  of  Scripture  for  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  men,  and  adapting  it,  while  ever  the  same  in  substance,  as 
drawn  from  the  same  source,  to  the  particular  character,  condition, 
and  circumstances  of  those  to  whom  it  is  more  immediately 
addressed.  This,  therefore,  is  a  subject  deserving  of  attention,  the 
analysis  and  synthesis,  the  compacting  or  the  breaking  down  of 
the  doctrines  of  Scripture,  so  as  to  make  them  most  intelligible, 
impressive,  and  interesting  to  the  hearers. 

There  are  also  general  principles  and  rules  applicable  to  preach¬ 
ing,  derived  from  the  consideration  of  the  constitution  and  character 
of  man,  and  therefore  in  some  measure  common  to  the  preacher, 
with  others  whose  duty  or  object  it  is  to  convince  men’s  under¬ 
standings,  and  to  impress  their  hearts  and  consciences.  The 
investigation  of  these  principles  and  rules  is  sometimes  spoken  of 


52 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


under  the  name  of  pulpit  eloquence,  or  sacred  rhetoric,  or  the  art 
of  preaching ;  names  which  are  unbecoming,  if  not  offensive,  from 
their  tendency  to  suggest  the  idea  that  the  preacher  of  the  gospel 
ranks  in  the  same  class  as  any  other  sort  of  orator,  and  that  he 
expects  success  in  the  object  he  aims  at — an  object  which  can  be 
effected  only,  in  every  instance  and  in  every  degree,  by  divine 
agency — from  the  enticing  words  of  man’s  wisdom,  from  the 
ordinary  causes  and  principles  by  which  men’s  minds  are  com¬ 
monly  influenced  in  secular  matters.  But  although  those  names 
are  unbecoming,  the  subject  which  they  describe  is  quite  worthy 
of  some  degree  of  attention  from  those  who  aspire  to  be  preachers 
of  the  gospel,  viz.  the  investigating  of  these  rules  drawn  from  the 
principles  of  human  nature,  and  the  experience  of  God’s  most 
honoured  servants,  by  the  application  of  which  the  hearers  of 
the  word  may  be  more  certainly  interested,  persuaded,  and  im¬ 
pressed.  The  objects  which  the  preacher  ought  to  have  in  view 
can  be  effected  only  by  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
but  it  is  also  true  that  the  Holy  Ghost  employs  at  once  the  gifts 
and  the  graces  of  the  preacher,  and  the  natural  faculties,  capacities 
and  sensibilities  of  the  hearers,  in  effecting  his  own  purposes  of 
mercy  ;  just  as  he  employed  the  natural  faculties  and  acquirements 
of  men  in  the  production  of  that  word  which  is  all  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  and  which  holy  men  wrote  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  has  been  common  to  speak  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures  as  containing  the  finest  specimens  extant  of  the  various 
qualities  which  render  human  compositions  the  objects  of  admira¬ 
tion,  specimens  of  poetry  and  oratory,  pre-eminently  distinguished 
as  sublime,  beautiful,  and  pathetic.  And  although  this  is  but  an 
insignificant  circumstance,  when  viewed  as  a  recommendation  of 
that  word  which  came  from  God,  and  is  intended  to  make  men 
wise  unto  salvation,  yet  the  statement  is  true — it  is  a  fact  that  the 
Scriptures  do  contain  the  finest  specimens  of  poetry  and  oratory : 
this  was  done  by  God,  it  was  intended  by  him,  and  has  been 
employed  by  him,  for  accomplishing  his  gracious  purposes.  If  the 
word  of  God  given  by  inspiration  has  been  so  constructed  as  to 
address  itself  to  the  natural  faculties  and  susceptibilities  of  men, 
to  their  reason,  their  imagination,  and  their  taste,  there  can  be  no 
reason  why  the  preachers  of  the  word  should  not  seek  to  improve 
and  apply  in  their  sacred  calling  any  gifts  they  may  possess 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


53 


analogous  to  those  exhibited  by  the  inspired  penmen  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  or  why  they  should  not  seek  to  gain  for  the  truth  a  readier 
access  to  the  understandings  and  hearts  of  men,  by  addressing 
themselves  skilfully  and  judiciously  to  the  capacities  and  suscepti¬ 
bilities  of  their  hearers.  One  reason,  though  certainly  not  the 
only  one,  why  our  Saviour  spoke  so  much  in  parables,  was  that  he 
might  convey  instruction  in  a  form  and  manner  that  might  be 
fitted,  according  to  our  natural  constitution,  to  tell  most  effectually 
upon  the  apprehensions  and  feelings  of  men,  and  there  is  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  profound  reverence  with  which  everything 
connected  with  the  only  begotten  and  well-beloved  Son  of  God, 
whom  the  Father  by  an  audible  voice  from  heaven  commanded 
men  to  hear,  ought  to  be  regarded,  in  saying  that  his  parables  are 
constructed  with  inimitable  skill  and  beauty.  The  apostle  Paul 
skilfully  adapted  his  addresses  to  the  circumstances  in  which  he 
was  placed,  and  the  characters  of  those  whom  he  addressed,  and  we 
can  on  several  occasions  discover  in  his  addresses  what  might  be 
truly  characterised  as  consummate  oratorical  skill.  This  is  true  as 
a  matter  of  fact  connected  with  his  addresses,  and  it  is  not  incon¬ 
sistent  with  another  truth,  viz.,  that  in  delivering  them,  he  enjoyed 
the  fulfilment  of  our  Saviour’s  promise,  It  shall  be  given  you  in 
that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  say.”  On  these  grounds  we  hold  it 
to  be  quite  right  and  proper  that  men,  in  preparing  for  the  office 
of  the  ministry,  should  give  some  attention  to  what  has  been 
rather  unhappily  called  sacred  rhetoric,  or  the  art  of  preaching, 
but  what  is  usually  called  upon  the  Continent  by  a  name  less 
objectionable,  because  more  vague  and  general,  and  less  likely  to 
suggest  the  ideas  of  management  and  contrivance,  such  as  secular 
orators  employ,  viz.,  homiletics.  This  term  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  word  0/4/X/a,  the  term  usually  applied  by  the  Greek  Fathers 
to  their  popular  expositions  of  Scripture  and  their  ordinary  pulpit 
discourses  ;  and  it  just  describes  the  system  of  principles  and  rules 
derived  from  the  constitution  of  man,  the  study  of  approved 
models,  and  the  experience  of  the  church,  by  the  application  of 
which  men  may  be  guided  in  their  preparations  for  the  pulpit  to 
such  a  mode  of  arrangement,  representation,  composition,  and 
delivery,  as  may  be  best  fitted  to  engage  the  attention  and  impress 
the  understandings,  hearts,  and  consciences  of  their  hearers.  Any 
attempt  to  introduce  into  discourses  from  the  pulpit  the  mere 


54 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


tricks  and  contrivances  of  oratory,  composition,  or  delivery,  is 
sinful  and  degrading,  but  an  acquaintance  with  those  great 
principles  which,  based  upon  the  constitution  of  human  nature 
and  confirmed  by  experience,  are  ascertained  to  bear  beneficially 
upon  the  great  objects  of  instructing  and  impressing  men  in  their 
special  application  to  the  pulpit,  is  not  unworthy  of  some  share  of 
your  attention.  Method  was  the  last  of  the  four  great  divisions 
into  which  the  old  systems  of  logic,  professing  to  instruct  men  in 
the  right  use  of  their  faculties,  used  to  be  divided,  and  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  some  acquaintance  with  the  laws  and  rules  of 
method  must  be  highly  useful  to  all  who  are  called  upon  to  labour 
in  the  inculcation  of  truth  and  in  the  instruction  of  mankind. 

Another  topic  comprehended  under  this  general  head  of  homi¬ 
letics,  but  sufficiently  important  to  be  separately  adverted  to — 
and  indeed  on  the  Continent  they  have  given  it  a  distinct  name, 
catechetics  ” — is  the  adaptation  of  instruction  to  the  young,  and 
the  principles  by  which  this  ought  to  be  regulated.  Ministers 
should  give  much  attention  to  the  instruction  of  the  young, 
and  in  directing  their  attention  to  this  important  department  of 
duty,  it  is  not  only  warrantable,  but  necessary,  to  endeavour  to 
apply  those  principles  and  rules,  the  adoption  of  which  observation 
and  experience  have  shewn  to  be  naturally  fitted  to  engage  the 
attention  and  to  influence  the  minds  of  the  young.  Ministers 
ought  to  take  an  interest  in  the  promotion  of  general  education, 
with  the  view  of  securing,  so  far  as  possible,  that  it  be  regulated 
by  sound  principles  and  brought  under  religious  influences,  that 
the  youth  may  be  trained  up  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  that 
the  school  may  become  a  nursery  for  the  church.  And  for  this 
reason,  as  well  as  to  aid  them  in  their  own  personal  labours  in  the 
religious  instruction  of  the  youth  of  their  flocks,  it  is  right  that 
they  should  make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  principles  of 
education  and  with  the  most  approved  systems  of  tuition. 

Another  department  of  pastoral  theology  is  what  is  commonly 
called  the  pastoral  care,  or  the  consideration  of  the  principles  and 
rules  by  which  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  ought  to  be  guided  in 
the  discharge  of  the  more  private  duties  of  their  office.  In  the 
more  private  as  well  as  in  the  more  public  duties  of  the  ministerial 
office,  the  indispensable  qualifications  are  right  motives,  a  due 
sense  of  responsibility,  and  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  scriptural 


DIVISION  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


55 


scheme  of  truth ;  for  the  minister  s  great  work  in  private,  as  well 
as  in  public,  is  just  to  explain,  and  enforce,  and  apply,  the  doc¬ 
trines  and  duties  of  the  word  of  God,  and  the  different  branches 
into  which  ministerial  duty  is  commonly  divided,  such  as  the 
preachiug  of  the  gospel,  the  instruction  of  the  young,  the  visita¬ 
tion  of  the  sick,  and  ordinary  visitation  from  house  to  house,  are 
just  based  upon  the  different  circumstances  in  which  divine  truth 
is  to  be  explained  and  enforced,  and  the  modifications  in  the 
modes  and  other  accompaniments  of  the  inculcation  of  it  which 
these  different  circumstances  may  require  or  suggest.  Instruction 
of  the  young  and  visiting  the  sick  are,  or  should  be,  just  explain¬ 
ing,  enforcing,  and  applying  divine  truth,  the  revelation  which 
God  has  given  concerning  himself ;  and  in  them,  therefore,  as 
well  as  in  the  public  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  essential  things 
are  that  we  understand  God’s  revelation,  that  we  are  able  to 
unfold  and  apply  it,  that  we  are  impressed  with  the  objects  for 
which  this  truth  was  revealed,  are  sincerely  and  ardently  desirous 
that  these  objects  should  be  promoted.  But  the  difference  of  the 
accompanying  circumstances,  and  of  the  immediate  or  proximate 
object  to  be  aimed  at  in  these  different  cases,  renders  necessarv 
some  difference  in  the  mode  of  inculcating  and  applying  the 
truth ;  and  in  regard  to  all  these  various  departments  of  pastoral 
duty,  important  benefit  may  be  derived  from  a  careful  and  judi¬ 
cious  consideration  of  their  nature  and  objects,  and  from  an  exami¬ 
nation  of  the  history,  experience,  and  counsels  of  those  who  have 
given  most  attention  to  these  matters,  who  have  been  most  largely 
endowed  with  spiritual  wisdom,  and  who  have  been  most  signally 
blessed  of  God  in  their  efforts  for  promoting  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  men.  There  is  much  in  regard  to  the  various  departments  of 
pastoral  duty,  and  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  ought  to  be 
discharged,  which  can  be  learned  only  from  the  exercise  of  good 
sense  and  sound  judgment  upon  the  actual  circumstances  in  which 
in  providence  you  may  be  placed.  But  human  nature  is  the  same 
in  all  ages  and  circumstances;  the  great  general  principles  by 
which  men  are  influenced,  and  by  which  others  ought  to  seek  to 
influence  them  for  their  good,  are  the  same ;  and,  therefore,  in 
regard  to  all  the  departments  of  pastoral  duty,  much  is  to  be 
learned  from  careful  meditation  upon  the  subject,  and  from  a 
study  of  the  labours  and  experience  of  others. 


56 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


There  is  one  other  department  of  pastoral  theology  to  which  the 
authors  who  have  written  upon  this  subject  have  assigned  a  sepa¬ 
rate  designation.  It  is  that  which  professes  to  explain  the  prin¬ 
ciples  by  which  the  government  of  the  church  ought  to  be  regu¬ 
lated,  and  it  is  commonly  called  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence.  The 
constitution  of  the  church,  as  laid  down  in  Scripture,  of  course 
forms  a  department  in  dogmatic  or  doctrinal  theology,  and  the 
subject  also  enters  largely  into  polemic  theology.  The  proper  law 
for  regulating  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  church  of 
Christ  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  word  of  God,  and  its  great  leading 
principles  are  plain  and  simple.  But  as  it  is  only  the  widest  and 
most  general  principles  upon  the  subject  that  are  laid  down  or 
indicated  in  Scripture,  much  discussion  has  taken  place,  and  many 
regulations  have  been  adopted,  at  different  times  and  by  different 
churches,  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  various  questions 
and  classes  of  questions  which  have  arisen  in  the  actual  adminis¬ 
tration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  ought  to  be  decided  or  disposed  of. 
Most  churches  have  thought  it  necessary  or  expedient  to  have, 
besides  their  creeds  and  confessions  exhibiting  the  summary  of 
doctrine  which  they  regarded  as  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God, 
canons  or  codes  of  discipline  laying  down  rules  or  regulations  as  to 
the  best  way  of  disposing  of  the  various  questions  that  must  be 
continually  arising  and  calling  for  decision  wherever  a  church  of 
Christ  is  in  full  operation.  These  canons  or  codes  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline  have  usually  professed  to  be  derived  from  the  Bible,  in 
so  far  as  it  contains  materials  bearing  upon  this  subject,  and  from 
the  principles  of  natural  justice  and  equity,  applied  to  the  parti¬ 
cular  subject  under  consideration.  They  have  often  occupied  a 
degree  of  the  attention  of  churches  much  greater  than  their  neces¬ 
sity  and  their  intrinsic  importance  demanded.  Still  it  is  true  that 
the  head  of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  embraces  the  discussion  of 
some  questions  of  no  little  importance.  It  has  occupied  a  place 
of  considerable  prominence  in  the  general  history  of  theological 
literature.  Occasions  and  emergencies  from  time  to  time  occur  in 
the  history  of  churches  on  which  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  the 
principles  and  history  of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  is  important 
and  useful,  if  not  indispensably  necessary ;  while  it  is  obviously  a 
matter  of  obligation  on  the  part  of  ministers  to  acquire  that  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  constitution  and  discipline  of  their  own  churches 


EXTENT  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


57 


which  may  be  necessary  for  the  right  discharge  of  the  duties  that 
may  devolve  upon  them  in  regard  to  the  ordinary  administration 
of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  We  have  eighty-five  Canons  and  eight 
books  of  Constitutions,  which  profess  to  have  been  compiled  by  the 
apostles,  and  which  have  been  held  up  by  some  writers  of  the 
church  of  Kome  as  genuine  and  authentic.  They  are  undoubtedly 
the  compilation  of  a  subsequent  age,  but  they  give  interesting  and 
curious  information  concerning  the  government  and  discipline  of 
the  early  church,  and  have  been  to  some  extent  the  basis  on  which 
the  canons  and  discipline  even  of  the  most  Protestant  churches 
have  been  founded.  Most  of  the  early  councils  of  the  church 
passed  canons  in  regard  to  discipline  and  the  administration  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  as  well  as  gave  decisions  upon  questions  of 
doctrine,  and  these  canons  were  the  basis  of  the  more  ancient 
portion  of  the  canon  law,  the  ecclesiastical  law  of  the  church  of 
Rome.  And  although  Luther  publicly  burned  the  canon  law,  and 
although  it  contains  a  great  deal  of  Popish  corruption,  a  great  deal 
both  of  doctrine  and  regulation  fitted  to  introduce  and  establish  an 
antichristian  tyranny  over  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men,  yet 
as  it  also  contains  a  large  portion  of  what  undoubtedly  formed  the 
discipline  of  the  early  church,  and  has  exerted  no  small  influence 
upon  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  of  all  the  Protestant  churches,  its 
contents  and  its  history  are  worthy  of  some  degree  of  attention 
from  those  who  wish  to  possess  an  acquaintance  with  all  the  leading 
departments  of  theological  literature,  and  to  be  thoroughly  fitted 
for  the  discharge  of  those  duties  that  may  devolve  upon  them  as 
office-bearers  of  the  church.  Such  is  a  brief  sketch  of  the  leading 
divisions  into  which  theological  science  is  commonly  divided,  and 
such  the  range  of  topics  which  it  comprehends. 

This  sketch,  however,  gives  a  very  faint  impression  of  the  extent 
and  magnitude  of  the  work  on  which  you  have  entered,  just 
because  it  is  much  too  vague  and  general  to  convey  any  vivid 
impression.  Were  we  to  take  any  one  of  the  leading  divisions  and 
to  fill  up  somewhat  more  in  detail  the  skeleton  we  have  exhibited, 
as,  for  example,  exegetical  theology,  and  to  present  to  you  a  state¬ 
ment  of  all  that  was  needful  in  order  to  a  correct  and  rightly 
principled  interpretation  of  the  Scripture,  the  extent  of  the  neces¬ 
sary  materials,  the  precise  nature  of  the  process  to  be  pursued,  and 
some  of  the  leading  books  to  be  read  and  mastered,  as  we  may 


58 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


afterwards  have  occasion  to  do,  you  might  probably  have  a  more 
distinct  conception  of  the  extent  of  the  field,  and  of  the  magnitude 
of  the  objects  which  it  embraces.  But  enough  has  perhaps  been 
said  in  this  very  brief  and  general  sketch  for  my  present  purpose, 
which  is  principally  to  impress  you  with  such  a  sense  of  the  extent 
and  magnitude  of  the  work  that  lies  before  you,  as  may  lead  you 
to  cherish  a  due  sense  of  the  responsibility  attaching  to  the  way  in 
which  you  now  spend  your  time  and  exercise  your  faculties,  and 
to  constrain  you  to  form  the  resolution,  depending  upon  God’s 
grace,  that  you  will  gird  up  the  loins  of  your  minds,  and  that  you 
will  devote  your  utmost  energies  and  the  most  strenuous  and  per¬ 
severing  application  to  the  studies  on  which  you  are  about  to  enter. 
These  studies,  indeed,  should  not  be  confined  to  the  brief  period 
of  your  attendance  at  this  college,  but  should  continue  during  your 
lives ;  but  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  acquaintance  with  all  these 
different  topics,  without  which  no  one  ought,  in  the  present  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  church,  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  and 
it  is  most  important  that  a  right  basis  should  now  be  laid  for  your 
future  labours  in  extending  your  knowledge.  And  the  greater  the 
probability  is  that  you  may  be,  at  no  distant  period,  engaged  in 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  may  then  have  numerous  and  urgent 
demands  upon  you  for  active  exertion,  the  more  necessary  is  it  that, 
during  the  prosecution  of  your  theological  studies,  your  time  should 
be  faithfully  and  conscientiously  devoted  to  the  work  of  prepara¬ 
tion.  It  may  not  be  unreasonable  or  improper  that,  during  your 
future  lives,  while  engaged  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  you  may, 
if  circumstances  a:dmit  of  it,  give  special  attention  to  some  one 
department  or  other  of  theological  science,  according  to  the  bent 
of  your  faculties  and  inclinations,  the  books  which  you  have  an 
opportunity  of  studying,  and  the  state  of  the  church  and  the  world 
in  the  sphere  where  your  lot  may  be  cast.  This,  within  certain 
limits,  may  be  right  and  reasonable,  provided  you  never  neglect  the 
one  paramount  object  of  studying  the  word  of  God,  and  accurately 
ascertaining  its  meaning.  But  in  the  meantime  it  is  indispensable 
that  you  all  go  through  the  same  course,  and  all  strive  to  acquire 
that  amount  of  knowledge  of  theological  science  which  every 
minister  of  the  gospel  ought  to  possess,  and  that  you  seek  to  be 
impressed  with  those  principles,  and  trained  to  those  habits,  which 
may  prepare  you  for  the  permanent  prosecution  of  theological 


EXTENT  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


59 


studies.  No  one  can  be  considered  a  theologian,  or  qualified  to  be 
a  minister  of  the  gospel,  unless  and  until  he  has  read  much  and 
thought  much,  acquired  a  considerable  amount  of  knowledge  from 
the  reading  of  books,  and  brought  his  powers  and  faculties  to  bear 
in  all  their  strength  and  energy  upon  the  various  topics  to  which 
his  attention  may  have  been  directed. 

In  directing  your  attention  to  the  consideration  that  from  the 
vast  extent  of  theological  science  and  the  number  of  different 
subjects  it  embraces,  there  is  required  much  laborious  study  before 
you  can  become  theologians,  it  is  right  to  warn  you  against  a 
temptation  to  which  some  of  you  might  be  exposed  upon  this 
subject,  that,  viz.,  of  dissipating  your  time  and  even  injuring  your 
faculties,  by  the  indiscriminate  perusal  of  a  great  number  of  books. 
The  extent  of  theological  literature  is  so  vast,  the  number  of  works 
that  have  been  produced  upon  theological  subjects  by  men  of  the 
highest  talents,  learning,  and  celebrity  is  so  great,  that  students 
who  have  access  to  libraries  are  in  some  danger  of  being  tempted 
to  become  mere  devourers  of  books,  without  prosecuting  a  regular 
plan  of  study,  or  giving  due  time  and  attention  to  digesting 
the  books  they  read,  or  seeking  to  exercise  their  own  judgment, 
or  to  form  their  own  opinions  upon  the  various  subjects  which 
their  reading  may  bring  under  their  notice.  This  practice  is 
unfavourable  to  the  culture  of  the  mental  powers,  which  ought 
to  be  one  object  of  all  our  studies,  and  it  does  not  in  the  long  run 
tend  to  promote  the  acquisition  of  any  knowledge  that  is  really 
valuable.  A  mere  devourer  of  books  will  never  become  really 
skilled  in  any  science,  and  will  not  be  able  to  apply  the  knowledge 
he  may  have  acquired  to  any  really  useful  purpose.  And  there  is 
perhaps  scarcely  any  science  where  students  are  more  strongly 
tempted  than  in  theology  to  indulge  in  a  wide  range  of  indiscrimi¬ 
nate  and  miscellaneous  reading,  without  giving  due  attention  to 
regulate  their  reading  upon  a  systematic  plan,  and  to  exercise  their 
powers  of  judgment  and  reflection  upon  the  subject  of  their  reading. 
Luther  was  accustomed  to  say  that  there  were  three  things  that 
were  necessary  to  make  a  theologian,  viz,,  prayer,  meditation,  and 
temptation  or  experience.  Under  the  head  of  meditation  he,  of 
course,  comprehended  reading,  to  which  the  apostle  enjoined 
Timothy  to  give  attendance,  but  by  including  it  under  the  head  of 
meditation  he  shewed  very  emphatically  the  strength  of  his  con- 


60 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


viction  that  it  was  not  the  mere  perusal  of  books  that  was  in  itself 
of  any  very  great  value,  unless  men^s  faculties  were  really  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  subjects  of  the  books  read.  There  must  be  reading, 
much  reading,  but  this  reading  must  not  be  the  mere  devouring  of 
books,  it  must  be  accompanied  with  such  a  careful  weighing  and 
diofestinof  of  what  is  read,  that  it  should  rather  be  called  meditation 
than  reading.  There  are  two  errors  upon  this  subject  to  be  guarded 
against — First,  indiscriminate  reading  of  whatever  theological 
books  may  happen  to  come  in  your  way,  or  may  be  most  agreeable 
to  your  inclination;  and  second,  mere  reading,  unaccompanied  in  due 
measure  with  meditation  and  reflection.  You  are  not  to  imagine 
that  it  would  be  warrantable  or  safe  for  you  to  plunge  without  pre¬ 
meditation  or  system  into  the  immense  ocean  of  theological 
literature,  following  wherever  accident  or  fancy  might  lead  you. 
At  a  subsequent  period  of  your  lives  you  may  perhaps  (as  we  have 
said)  be  more  at  liberty  to  gratify  your  inclination  in  selecting 
some  particular  department  of  theological  literature,  and  giving 
it  a  prominent  place  in  your  ordinary  studies.  But  during  the 
period  of  your  attendance  in  this  place,  in  the  prosecution  of  what 
is  technically  called  the  study  of  theology,  you  have  distinct  and 
definite  objects  which  you  are  bound  to  aim  at,  and  to  accomplish, 
and  must  therefore  adopt  and  follow  out  a  definite  plan.  You  must 
during  your  theological  studies  acquire  a  respectable  acquaintance 
with  theological  science  in  its  leading  departments  ;  and  this  can  be 
fully  secured  only  by  first  of  all  getting  some  general  notions  of 
its  leading  divisions,  and  their  connection  with  each  other  (such 
as  we  have  endeavoured  to  lay  before  you),  and  then  following  out 
some  regular  plan  in  prosecuting  the  study  of  them,  based  upon  a 
right  view  of  their  mutual  relations,  and  sufficiently  comprehensive 
to  include  everything  of  primary  importance,  and  especially  every¬ 
thing  indispensable  to  a  creditable  preparation  for  entering  upon 
the  work  of  the  ministry. 

It  would  be  a  very  easy  thing  for  you  to  spend  the  whole  of  the 
four  years  of  your  studies  in  reading  curious  and  interesting  works, 
even  in  some  one  department  of  theological  literature,  while  yet 
you  had  acquired  little  substantial,  useful,  practical  knowledge  of 
theology,  and  might  be  ignorant  of  many  things  which  it  would 
be  disgraceful  for  a  minister  not  to  know,  and  ignorance  of  which 


EXTENT  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


61 


would,  in  a  great  measure,  render  you  disqualified  for  the  office  of 
the  ministry.  Of  course  you  are  to  presume  (unless  there  be 
very  clear  evidence  to  the  contrary)  that  the  subjects  brought 
under  your  notice  by  your  instructors  at  the  different  periods  of 
your  progress  in  your  studies,  in  the  successive  years  of  your 
attendance  in  this  place,  are  those  which,  for  the  time,  should 
mainly  occupy  your  thoughts,  fill  your  minds,  and  regulate  your 
course  of  reading.  And  whether  you  are  reading  books  or  listen¬ 
ing  to  instructions,  you  must  not  neglect  meditation,  letting  your 
mind  dwell  upon  what  you  read  and  hear,  until  you  see  it  clearly 
and  comprehend  it  fully,  until  you  have  clearly  apprehended  its 
foundation  and  its  bearings  ;  in  short,  until  you  have  so  fully 
digested  it,  that  it  has  become  a  part  of  your  own  intellectual 
provision,  or  rather  until  the  views  which  may  have  been  brought 
before  you  by  reading  or  hearing  on  all  questions  of  importance 
are  clearly  discerned,  both  in  their  meaning  and  in  their  evidence, 
are  admitted  as  a  portion  of  those  convictions  which  you  firmly 
hold  and  can  intelligently  defend,  or  are  deliberately  rejected,  as 
not  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God, — the  only  source  of  sound 
doctrine,  the  only  standard  by  which  your  views  as  theologians, 
and  your  whole  conduct  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  ought  to  be 
regulated.  The  necessity  of  combining  reading  and  meditation, 
or  reflection,  is  thus  happily  expressed  by  a  celebrated  writer, 
Gerhard  John  Vossius,  the  father  of  the  equally  celebrated  Isaac 
Vossius  : — “  Omnino  igitur  lectio  et  meditatio  arctissimo  societatis 
vinculo  colligari  debent.  Mera  enim  lectio  non  penetrat  in  ani- 
mum ;  siquidem  attentione  opus  est  in  legendo,  et  ubi  legeris, 
meditatione,  cur  quidque  dicatur,  cur  sic  potius  quam  aliter,  et 
quomodo  lecta  ad  res  similes  possimus  transferre.  Sine  istis,  quod 
legitur  non  satis  intelligitur,  et  minutum  iliud  quod  capitur, 
eo  quod  radice  careat,  non  facit  fructum.  Immo  facile  ejus 
subibit  oblivio,  quomodo  quae  non  alte  inhserent  solo,  fere  vento 
auferuntur.  Ut  mirandum  non  sit,  si  soepe  lectionis  multifariae 
homines,  exigui  sint  judicii,  et  poene  nullius.  Nimirum  hoc  inde 
est,  quia  memoriam  onerant,  judicium  non  acuunt  vel  exercent. 
Sed  ut  hac  parte  delinquunt  complures  librorum  helluones,  qui 
multa  vorant,  nulla  concoquunt,  ii  in  contrarium  peccant  qui, 
alienis  laboribus  contemptis,  assidui  sunt  in  meditando,  et  quia 
aliena  nesciunt,  quae  multis  plurimum  partibus  sunt  veriora  melior- 


62 


FOURTH  LECTURE. 


aque,  sua  toties  somnia  amplectuntur  pro  oraculis.” — (Gerhard 
Tossius,  quoted  in  BuddcBi  Isagoge,  p.  89.) ' 

^  ‘  ‘  Reading  and  meditation  ought  to  be  very  closely  and  intimately  combined  ; 
for  even  reading  does  not  penetrate  into  the  mind,  there  being  a  necessity  for 
attention  while  reading,  and  for  meditation  after  it,  that  we  may  perceive  the 
reasons  and  grounds  of  the  particular  statements  made,  and  be  able  to  apply  what 
we  read  to  other  things  of  a  similar  kind.  Without  this  what  is  read  is  not 
understood,  and  the  small  portion  that  may  be  comprehended  will  produce  no 
fruit,  because  it  has  no  root.  It  will  also  soon  be  forgotten,  just  as  we  see  that 
what  is  not  fixed  deep  in  the  earth  is  generally  carried  away  by  the  wind.  So 
that  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  men  of  extensive  and  multifarious  reading 
are  sometimes  possessed  of  little  or  no  judgment.  The  reason  is,  that  they  merely 
load  their  memories,  and  do  not  sharpen  their  judgment  by  exercising  it.  But  as 
many  ‘  helluones  librorum’  err  on  one  side,  devouring  much  and  digesting  nothing, 
so  they  err  in  an  opposite  extreme  who,  despising  the  labours  of  others,  spend 
their  time  wholly  in  meditation,  and  because  they  are  ignorant  of  what  others 
have  written,  though  much  more  true  and  excellent  than  anything  they  could 
produce,  they  often  embrace  their  own  dreams  and  fancies  for  oracles.” 


LECTURE  V. 


PRAYEE,  MEDITATION,  AND  TEMPTATION. 


T^E  have  had  occasion  to  advert  to  Luther’s  well-known  posi» 
^  *  tion  that  it  is  prayer,  meditation,  and  temptation  that  con¬ 
tribute  to  make  a  theologian,  and  we  have  explained  to  you  the 
nature  of  meditation,  as  well  as  given  you  a  brief  outline  of  the 
vast  field  of  topics  on  which  this  meditation,  implying  as  it  does 
the  vigorous  and  steady  exercise  of  all  your  powers  and  faculties, 
is  to  be  exercised.  Luther  places  prayer  first,  and  this  was 
nothing  more  than  is  justly  due  to  its  paramount  importance ;  it 
is  the  imperative  and  primary  duty  of  all  who  desire  to  become 
acquainted  with  theology,  and  qualified  for  the  office  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel,  to  abound  in  prayer  and  supplication.  It  is  quite 
true  that  men  without  piety  and  without  prayer  may  read  many 
theological  books,  that  God  may  uphold  and  sustain  them  in  the 
ordinary  exercise  of  their  faculties  when  directed  to  these  objects, 
as  when  directed  to  any  others,  and  that  they  may  thus  acquire 
a  large  measure  of  acquaintance  with  theological  topics,  and  be 
able  to  discuss  them  and  dispute  about  them.  It  has  often  been 
remarked,  and  the  remark  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  many  men 
have  written  ably  and  convincingly  in  defence  of  the  truth  of 
the  Christian  revelation,  in  opposition  to  the  attacks  of  infidels, 
who  never  understood  or  comprehended  the  leading  truths  con¬ 
tained  in  the  revelation  which  they  proved  to  have  come  from 
God,  and  who  of  course  derived  no  real  permanent  benefit  from 
the  revelation  which  God  had  given  them.  It  is  a  truth  clearly 
revealed  to  us  in  Scripture,  that  no  man  ever  really  attains  to 
any  such  knowledge  of  God’s  revealed  will  as  will  be  available 
for  his  own  personal  salvation,  or  warrant  him  in  entertaining  the 
expectation  of  being  instrumental  through  the  truth  in  promoting 


64 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


the  salvation  of  others,  except  through  the  direct  agency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  convincing  men 
savingly  of  the  truth  of  God’s  revelation,  and  in  enabling  them 
to  understand  its  meaning,  we  shall  have  occasion  afterwards  to 
consider.  But  in  the  meantime,  we  assume  it  as  true,  as  the 
basis  of  our  exhortation  to  you  to  accompany  the  whole  of  your 
theological  studies  with  a  spirit  and  habit  of  earnest  prayer  for 
the  illuminating  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  truths  upon 
the  subject  which  ought  to  be  most  deeply  impressed  upon  your 
minds,  and  which  ought  to  be  constantly  remembered  and  applied, 
are  just  these:  1st,  that  all  really  useful  and  valuable  knowledge 
of  theology,  or  of  God’s  revealed  will,  must  come  from  God 
himself;  2d,  that  God  imparts  this  knowledge  in  connection  with 
the  study  of  his  word,  and  the  other  means  of  grace,  through  the 
direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead  ; 
and  8d,  that  prayer  is  the  direct  and  appropriate  means  which 
God  has  appointed  and  promised  to  bless,  for  drawing  down  upon 
us  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  these  truths  are  duly 
impressed  upon  your  minds,  and  if  along  with  these  convictions 
you  have  a  real,  sincere,  and  permanent  desire  to  know  God’s 
revealed  will,  with  a  view  to  the  great  practical  ends  which  this 
revelation  was  intended  to  serve  with  reference  to  men,  collectively 
and  individually,  then  the  natural,  the  necessary  result  will  be, 
that  you  will  abound  in  prayer  and  supplication  for  the  outpouring 
of  God’s  Holy  Spirit,  that  you  will  earnestly  and  importunately 
seek  his  guidance  and  direction  with  reference  to  the  whole  of 
your  studies,  to  every  book  which  you  peruse,  every  topic  to 
which  your  attention  is  directed,  and  every  attempt  you  make 
to  investigate  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  his  word.  You  have 
all  been  taught,  and  the  teaching  was  in  full  accordance  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  that  prayer  is  an  offering  up  of  our  desires  unto 
God  for  things  agreeable  to  his  will”  and  if  you  have  at  all  rightly 
apprehended  this  truth,  you  must  have  seen,  that  in  the  discharge 
of  this  duty,  or  in  the  exercise  of  the  privilege  of  prayer,  every¬ 
thing  depends  upon  the  existence  in  your  hearts  of  a  desire  to 
obtain  something  from  God,  which  desire  you  offer  up  to  him, 
from  a  conviction  that  he  is  able  and  willing  to  grant  it,  and  that 
offering  it  up  to  him  is  the  best  and  most  certain  means  of  having 


^  Shorter  Catechism. — Ed. 


PRA  YER. 


65 


your  desires  accomplished.  The  first  thing  to  be  attended  to  then 
is,  that  you  have  in  this  matter  a  desire  agreeable  to  God’s  will. 
God  will  have  all  men  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  therefore  every  honest  desire  directed  to  the  attainment  of  a 
knowledge  of  his  revealed  will,  may  be  properly  offered  up  to  him 
in  prayer. 

That  the  desire  of  theological  knowledge  be  really  agreeable  to 
God’s  will,  and  therefore  a  suitable  basis  for  acceptable  prayer,  it 
must  be  founded  upon  right  views  of  what  divine  truth  is,  and  of 
what  are  the  objects  which  it  was  intended  by  God  to  serve.  Theo¬ 
logical  knowledge  is  in  itself  a  good  thing,  and  therefore  ought  to  be 
desired.  But  it  may  be  desired  from  unworthy  or  selfish  motives, 
or  without  the  presence  and  influence  of  those  considerations  that 
should  lead  men  to  desire  it,  and  either  of  these  circumstances 
Avould  vitiate  the  whole  state  of  mind  out  of  which  the  desire  pro¬ 
ceeds,  and  which  truly  determines  its  whole  moral  character — its 
agreeableness  to  God’s  will.  The  apostle  says,  “  He  that  desireth 
the  office  of  a  bishop  (or  pastor),  desireth  a  good  thing.”  The 
episcopate  or  pastoral  office  is  therefore  in  itself  a  good  thing,  and 
a:  proper  object  of  rightful  desire  ;  but  if  a  man  desire  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  not  from  a  real  and  honest  regard  to  the  true  nature 
and  proper  ends  of  the  Christian  ministry,  but  influenced  by  a 
regard  to  filthy  lucre,  to  power,  influence,  reputation,  love  of  liter¬ 
ary  ease,  or  any  consideration  derived  merely  from  the  contem¬ 
plation  of  things  seen  and  temporal,  and  not  from  the  great 
spiritual  and  eternal  results  which  the  ministry  was  designed  to  be 
instrumental  in  effecting,  then  the  desire,  however  strong  and 
powerful,  becomes  vitiated  and  sinful  in  its  character,  as  proceed¬ 
ing  from  and  indicating  a  state  of  mind  inconsistent  with  the 
requirements  of  God’s  law,  and  in  opposition  to  his  revealed  will. 
In  like  manner  the  desire  of  theological  knowledge,  the  wish  to 
attain  those  qualifications,  or  some  of  them,  usually  required  before 
men  are  admitted  to  the  ministry,  may  originate  in  mere  love  of 
knowledge  as  a  means  of  intellectual  exercise  and  cultivation,  in  a 
regard  to  wealth,  or  power,  or  fame ;  and  then  the  state  of  mind, 
the  originating  motive  which  gives  the  moral  character  to  the 
desire,  is  sinful  and  offensive  to  God.  The  desire  of  theological 
knowledge,  of  an  acquaintance  with  God’s  revealed  will,  is  only 
then  right  and  acceptable  when  it  is  founded  upon  right  views  of 

E 


66 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


what  God’s  revealed  will  is,  and  of  what  the  purposes  are  which  it 
was  intended  to  effect ;  in  one  word,  when  this  desire  of  know¬ 
ledge  originates  in  a  previous  intelligent  desire  to  realize,  or  attain 
to,  or  to  be  instrumental  in  promoting,  the  great  ends  for  which 
God  made  known  his  will  to  men. 

And  in  this  way,  under  the  head  of  prayer,  which  is  an  offering 
up  of  desires,  there  may  be  comprehended  the  consideration  of 
the  whole  motives  by  which  men  are  induced  to  engage  in  theo¬ 
logical  study,  and  in  preparing  for  the  work  of  the  ministry.  The 
motive  by  which  men  should  be  led  to  engage  in  theological  study 
is  a  real  desire  to  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  God’s  revealed  will, 
and  the  grounds  of  reason  of  this  desire,  the  causes  that  produce 
it,  and  keep  it  in  strong  and  vigorous  exercise,  should  be  right 
views  of  its  nature,  excellence,  and  objects,  as  coming  from  God, 
as  making  him  known  to  us,  and  as  communicated  by  him  to  men, 
in  order  that  they,  through  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  it,  may  be 
saved  from  eternal  misery,  and  enabled  to  glorify  God  and  to  enjoy 
him  for  ever.  It  is  because  theology,  as  taught  in  the  word  of 
God,  is  possessed  of  this  character,  and  intended  to  be  the  means 
of  effecting  these  results,  that  you  should  desire  the  knowledge  of 
it.  And  as  candidates  for  the  office  of  the  ministry,  you  should 
seek  and  desire  the  knowledge  of  it,  not  only  for  your  own  salva¬ 
tion,  but  in  order  that,  devoting  your  lives  to  the  making  it  known 
to  others,  you  may  become  the  instruments  of  saving  the  souls  of 
your  fellow-men.  A  desire  to  attain  to  a  full  knowledge  of  God’s 
revealed  will,  and  generally  to  acquire  all  the  qualifications  neces¬ 
sary  for  entering  upon  the  work  of  the  ministry,  originating  in 
such  views  as  these,  clearly  apprehended,  and  deeply  impressed 
upon  your  hearts,  will  ever  be  accompanied  with  profound  hu¬ 
mility,  with  a  deep  sense  of  responsibility,  and  with  a  firm  deter¬ 
mination  to  be  unwearied  and  persevering,  to  spare  no  pains,  and 
to  shrink  from  no  sacrifice,  in  the  use  of  all  the  means  by  which 
the  necessary  knowledge  may  be  acquired,  and  the  due  qualifica¬ 
tions  may  be  secured.  And  the  first  and  most  indispensable  of 
all  requisites  is,  that  you  have  such  a  desire,  founded  upon  such 
views  and  considerations  ;  and  whenever  this  desire  becomes  at  any 
time  weak  and  languid,  you  are  to  seek  to  have  it  strengthened 
and  invigorated  by  meditation  upon  the  value  of  divine  truth, 
and  the  preciousness  of  the  salvation  of  souls.  When  this  desire 


FRA  YER. 


67 


has  been  really  called  forth  in  3^our  hearts — and  without  it  your 
labours  and  studies  in  acquiring  theological  knowledge  cannot  be 
expected  to  lead  to  any  important  practical  results,  but  only  to 
harden  your  hearts  and  prove  offensive  to  God — ^then  you  will  feel 
constrained  to  offer  it  up  to  God  in  prayer,  under  a  conviction  that 
he  alone  can  gratify  it,  and  animated  by  the  assurance  that  he  has 
promised  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him.  If  all  your  studies, 
and  especially  all  your  attempts  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the 
statements  of  God’s  word,  are  not  accompanied  by  fervent  prayer 
for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  inference  is  irresistible, 
either  that  you  do  not  really  desire  to  become  savingly  acquainted 
with  divine  truth  for  vour  own  benefit  and  that  of  others,  or  else 
that  you  do  not  really  believe  that  God  alone  can  bestow  this 
knowledge,  and  that  he  usually  gives  it  in  answer  to  prayer.  And 
it  is  most  proper  that,  in  connection  with  this  topic,  you  should 
examine  carefully  into  the  state  of  ^mur  hearts,  and  into  tlie 
motives  which  have  led  you  to  engage  in  a  course  of  theological 
study,  the  desires  by  which  you  are  animated  in  the  prosecution 
of  it,  and  the  objects  which  you  have  in  view.  Without  right 
views  and  deep  impressions  of  the  origin  and  source,  the  character 
and  objects  of  theological  truth,  you  can  have  no  right  and  well- 
principled  desire  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  it,  and  without  such 
a  desire  existing  in  jmur  heart,  and  distinctly  recognised  and  felt 
there,  you  can  present  no  sincere  or  acceptable  prayer  to  God  for 
the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Where  no  desire  exists  in  the  heart,  of  course  it  cannot  be 
offered  up :  and  where  a  desire  for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  not  offered  up,  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  that  the  Spirit 
will  be  given.  If  3mu  are  not  3'et  aware  that  a  useful  and  really 
valuable  knowledge  of  theology  must  come  from  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  is  usually  given  in  answer  to  prayer,  you  are  still  ignorant  of 
the  first  principles  of  God’s  oracles  ;  and  if  you  have  no  real  and 
ardent  desire  to  get  this  knowledge,  and  are  not  ready  and  resolved 
to  abound  and  to  persevere  in  the  use  of  all  the  means  which  ma3" 
contribute  to  the  attainment  of  it,  then  your  attendance  here  is  a 
mockery,  it  is  a  hypocritical  profession  which  does  not  correspond 
with  the  actual  state  of  your  hearts  ;  and  in  that  case  it  would  be 
much  safer  and  more  expedient  for  you  to  direct  3mur  attention  to 
some  other  object  of  pursuit.  Your  jirayers  thus  become  tests  of 


68 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


your  character  and  motives — plain  indications  of  the  real  desires 
that  exist  in  your  hearts,  and  of  the  objects  which  you  are  really 
aiming  at.  Although  a  desire  to  have  the  enlightening  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  right  basis,  and  will  prove  the  only 
efficient  source  of  prayer  for  his  outpouring,  yet  it  is  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  the  desire  must  not  only  exist,  but  must  also  be  offered 
up.  Men  are  very  apt  to  deceive  themselves  in  regard  to  the 
state  of  their  hearts,  and  the  character  of  their  desires  and  affec¬ 
tions.  They  are  not  naturally  inclined  to  pray,  and  you  must 
beware  of  being  satisfied  with  any  other  evidence  of  the  existence 
and  strength  of  that  desire,  under  the  influence  of  which  you 
profess  to  be  acting,  except  the  fervency  and  the  frequency  with 
which  you  offer  it  up  to  God  in  prayer.  There  may  be  other 
causes  which  may  interest  you  in  the  studies  in  which  you  are 
about  to  be  engaged,  and  ma}^  induce  you  to  pursue  them  with 
some  degree  of  ardour  and  eagerness,  such  as  the  mere  pleasure 
arising  from  the  pursuit  of  knowledge  and  the  study  of  the  works 
of  men  eminently  distinguished  for  ability  and  learning,  or  a 
determination  to  make  a  creditable  preparation  for  the  duties  of 
the  profession  which  you  have  chosen  for  life ;  but  in  so  far  as 
your  prosecution  of  theological  study  arises  from  any  of  these 
motives,  you  will  not  be  led  to  much  fervent  prayer  for  the  out¬ 
pouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  though  you  may  be  willing  to 
admit  in  words  that  his  influence  alone  can  make  you  successful. 
It  is  only  a  desire  of  theological  knowledge,  based  upon  those 
views  and  motives  which  we  have  described,  that  will  lead  you  to 
abound  and  to  persevere  in  prayer  for  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  if  you  are  not  fervent  and  frequent  in  your  prayers 
for  his  guidance,  it  is  the  plain  dictate  of  common  sense  and 
prudence  that  you  are  not  yet  influenced  by  a  sincere  and  intelli¬ 
gent  desire  that  God  by  his  Spirit  would  guide  you  into  all  truth. 
You  are  not  then  to  infer  that  you  have  a  desire  for  theological 
knowledge  of  the  right  kind,  based  upon  right  views,  unless  you 
are  habitually  praying  for  the  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit ;  and  you 
may  be  assured  that  during  the  whole  of  your  theological  studies, 
which  ought  to  last  during  your  lives,  the  restraining  of  prayer, 
a  disposition  to  neglect  or  disregard  this  exercise,  or  to  perform  it 
carelessly  or  perfunctorily,  may  be  regarded  as  marking  at  once  a 
declension  in  your  spiritual  vigour  and  activity,  and  also  a  dimi- 


TEMFTATION. 


69 


nished  proficiency  in  the  acquisition  of  really  valuable  professional 
knowledge.  I  am  not  at  present  discussing  the  subject  of  prayer 
as  an  article  in  the  scheme  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  therefore 
will  make  no  attempt  to  prove  to  you  its  value  and  importance, 
or  endeavour  to  explain  to  you  how  it  may  be  expected  to  operate 
beneficially  in  promoting  your  progress  in  your  studies.  I  assume 
that  you  profess  to  believe  these  great  truths  on  which  at  once  its 
obligation  and  its  efficiency  are  founded,  and  would  most  earnestly 
entreat  you  to  take  care  that  this  duty  be  never  neglected  or  care¬ 
lessly  or  perfunctorily  performed ;  that  any  symptoms  of  negli¬ 
gence  or  indifference  upon  this  point  in  your  own  feeling  and 
practice  may  awake  in  you  instant  jealousy  and  alarm,  constrain 
you  to  repair  to  God’s  throne  with  deeper  fervency  and  more 
earnest  importunity  than  ever,  and  lead  you  to  meditate  more 
deeply  upon  those  views  which  may  impress  upon  you  a  sense  of 
your  own  ignorance,  helplessness,  and  dependence  upon  God’s 
Spirit ;  of  the  infinite  value  of  divine  truth,  the  ends  for  which  it 
was  made  known,  and  your  obligations  to  pursue  them ;  and  then 
you  will  assuredly  be  led  to  pray,  and  to  pray  aright,  for  the  out¬ 
pouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  guide  you  into  all  truth.  Let  it  be 
ever  deeply  impressed  upon  your  minds  that  if  you  have  not  those 
spiritual  influences  which  are  necessary  to  guide  you  into  all  truth, 
to  prepare  you  fully  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  the  adequate  and 
comprehensive  explanation  of  your  deficiency  is  to  be  found  in 
this — it  is  “  because  you  ask  not,  or  because  you  ask  amiss ;  ”  and 
let  this  consideration  be  applied  by  you  at  once  to  deepen  your 
sense  of  your  owm  responsibility  for  your  ignorance  and  your  short¬ 
comings,  and  at  the  same  time  to  encourage  you  to  greater  fervency 
and  importunity  of  prayer,  and  to  a  more  diligent  use  of  all  the 
means  on  which  the  blessing  of  God  is  asked  and  effected.  “  If 
any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all 
men  liberally  and  upbraideth  not,  and  it  shall  be  given  him  ” 
(James  i.  5). 

The  third  thing,  according  to  Luther’s  enumeration,  which  is 
necessary,  in  addition  to  prayer  and  meditation,  to  make  a  theo¬ 
logian,  is  temptation  or  experience,  or  the  practical  application  of 
divine  truth  in  the  way  of  guarding  against  evil  tendencies  and 
results.  We  may  have  occasion  at  a  future  period  of  your  studies 
to  explain  to  you  more  fully  this  element — the  qualifications  or 


70 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


exercises  of  a  theologian  or  a  minister  of  the  gospel;  but  it  is 
rio-ht  that  even  now  you  should  understand  its  meaning;  as  it  may 
be  useful  even  now  that  you  should  have  some  regard  to  the 
acquirement  and  use  of  it.  The  great  duty  of  a  minister  of  the 
gospel  is  to  explain,  enforce,  and  apply  divine  truth  as  contained 
in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  in  order  that  by  the  agency  of  the  Spirit 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth,  men  may  be  first  of  all 
turned  from  darkness  to  light,  and  then  thereafter  enabled  to  die 
more  and  more  unto  sin,  and  to  live  more  and  more  unto  righteous¬ 
ness,  It  is  of  course  assumed  as  indispensable  that  those  who 
devote  themselves  to  the  proclamation  of  divine  truth  for  this 
purpose,  have  themselves  experienced  its  converting  and  regener¬ 
ating  power,  that  they  are  recommending  that  to  others,  the 
efficiency  of  which  they  have  tried  and  experienced  themselves, 
in  changing  their  natures  and  turning  them  to  God,  by  leading 
them  to  embrace  Christ,  and  which  they  are  still  employing  for 
leading  them  to  die  more  and  more  unto  sin,  and  to  live  more  and 
more  unto  righteousness.  Now,  this  work,  in  which  every  man 
who  can  be  regarded  as  justified  to  be  the  spiritual  instructor  of 
others  ought  to  be  engaged — that  of  mortifying  and  subduing 
sin  in  his  own  members — is  attended  with  some  difficulties,  i.e. 
there  are  temptations  which  stand  in  the  way  of  his  prosecuting 
this  work  with  due  zeal  and  activity  and  perseverance ;  and  one 
exercise,  therefore,  in  which  he  ought  continually  to  be  engaged, 
is  applying  the  truths  which  he  has  been  taught  by  the  Spirit  to 
resist  these  temptations,  and  to  prosecute  the  work  of  going  on 
from  one  degree  of  grace  to  another.  The  habit  and  exercise  of 
applying  divine  truth  for  resisting  temptation  and  growing  in 
grace  is  indispensable  to  every  believer,  to  every  one  who  has 
really  entered  upon  the  way  to  Zion.  But  at  present  we  are 
called  upon  sjDecially  to  notice  that  it  tends  greatly  to  promote 
and  extend  men’s  real  knowledge  and  intimate  discernment  of 
divine  truth,  and  to  aid  them  unspeakably  in  rightly  dividing  it, 
or  applying  it  wisely  or  judiciously  for  the  benefit  of  others.  And 
it  was  this,  whose  necessity  and  importance  Luther  enforced 
under  the  name  of  temptation,  as  one  of  those  things  essential  to 
make  a  theologian  or  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  You  can  have  no 
thorough  and  intimate  acquaintance  with  divine  truth,  and 
especially  you  will  be  very  ill  fitted  to  explain  and  apply  it  for  the 


TEMPTATION. 


71 


benefit  of  others,  unless  you  have  had  some  practice  in  actually 
bringing  it  to  bear  upon  the  resistance  of  those  temptations  with 
which  all  believers  are  assailed  in  their  journey  towards  Zion. 
All  the  principal  truths  revealed  in  Scripture  are  intended  to  be 
instrumental  in  leading  men — those  to  whom  they  are  made  known 
— to  receive  Christ  J esus  the  Lord,  and  thereafter  to  walk  in  him, 
in  opposition  to  all  the  obstacles  which  the  devil,  the  world,  and 
the  flesh  may  interpose.  The  word  of  God  is  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  and  is  continually  to  be  employed  in  the  spiritual  warfare ; 
and  the  man  who  has  not  had  the  benefit  of  temptation  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  have  explained  it,  is  like  one  who  has  learned 
the  use  of  the  sword  only  from  written  instructions,  without  having 
tried  to  handle  or  to  wield  it,  and  who,  of  course,  is  still  very  unfit 
for  defending  himself  against  the  assault  of  enemies,  and  still  more 
unfit  for  instructing  others  in  the  art  of  self-defence. 

The  whole  doctrines  of  God’s  word  have  a  practical  tendency ; 
they  have  all  been  revealed  to  us  for  practical  objects,  and  they 
should  be  all  employed  for  producing  practical  results.  A  man 
cannot  be  said  to  have  a  full  and  adequate  knowledge  of  what  God 
has  revealed  in  his  word  unless  he  has  made  some  practical  appli¬ 
cation  of  it  to  its  intended  objects,  unless  he  has  not  only  formed 
some  notion  or  conception  of  it,  but  actually  tried  the  use  of  it. 
A  man  who  has  purchased  a  book  may  be  said,  in  a  certain  sense, 
to  have  in  his  possession  the  knowledge  which  the  book  contains. 
The  book  lies  on  his  table,  and  he  can,  when  he  chooses,  take  it 
up  and  read  it,  but  he  does  not  possess,  in  any  proper  sense,  or  to 
any  valuable  purpose,  the  knowledge  which  the  book  contains, 
until  he  has  made  iise  of  his  possession  of  it,  by  reading  and 
digesting  it,  until  he  has  applied  it  to  its  intended  purpose.  So 
in  like  manner,  no  one  can  be  said  fully  to  know  and  comprehend 
the  truths  revealed  in  God’s  word,  until  he  has  not  merely  acquired 
some  notions  about  them,  but  actually  begun  at  least  to  apply 
them  to  the  great  practical  purposes  which  they  were  intended  to 
serve,  in  enabling  those  within  whose  reach  they  have  been  brought 
to  resist  temptation,  to  mortify  sin,  and  to  go  on  to  higher  attain¬ 
ments,  in  conformity  to  the  image  and  will  of  him  who  revealed 
them.  This  process  of  actually  applying  the  word  of  God  and  the 
doctrines  which  it  contains  to  their  great  practical  purpose  in  the 
formation  of  character  and  in  the  regulation  of  conduct,  according 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


to  the  actual  circumstances  in  which  men  are  in  providence  placed, 
.and  the  temptations  they  are  called  upon  to  encounter,  produces  a 
clear,  impressive,  experimental  acquaintance  with  divine  truth, 
which  cannot  be  acquired  in  any  other  way,  and  which  peculiarly 
fits  them  for  communicating  clear  and  impressive  conceptions  of 
them  to  others  ;  and  it  is  held  as  a  maxim  applicable  to  all  branches 
of  knowledge,  that  an  acquaintance  with  any  subject  which  qualifies 
and  entitles  a  man  to  become  an  instructor  of  others,  must  be 
thorough  and  extensive,  such  as  to  give  him  the  clearest,  fulles% 
and  most  impressive  conception  of  it  himself.  And  such  a  know- 
ledo^e  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  divine  truth  cannot  be  attained, 
except  by  those  who  have  in  some  measure  succeeded  in  testing 
its  real  nature  and  its  intended  practical  results  upon  themselves, 
by  really  applying  it  to  resist  temptation,  and  to  promote  their 
own  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace.  Hence  it  is  not 
uncommon  to  meet  with  persons  who  have  not  read  much,  and 
who  have  had  but  little  mental  cultivation,  but  who  have  been 
long  in  the  habit  of  applying  the  word  of  God  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  to  the  object  of  being  enabled  to  resist  tempta¬ 
tion  and  be  directed  in  difficulties,  to  be  comforted  in  trials,  and 
to  be  guided  and  encouraged  in  their  spiritual  progress,  and  who, 
by  the  study  of  the  Bible,  and  by  this  process,  of  practically 
applying  it,  have  acquired  an  intimate  and  thorough  knowledge 
of  the  word  of  God  and  of  Christian  truth,  have  attained  to  a 
clearness  of  conception  on  those  subjects,  and  hold  their  views 
with  a  firmness  of  grasp  which  many  book-learned  theologians 
have  never  reached,  and  which  all  the  ingenuity  and  sophistry  of 
error  cannot  diminish  or  impair. 

This  is  a  process  which  ought  to  be  ever  going  on,  and  which 
will  certainly  not  impede  but  greatly  promote  your  more  formal 
studies  in  theology.  As  private  Christians,  you  are  bound  to  be 
continually  resisting  temptation,  mortifying  sin,  and  growing  in 
grace;  and  by  carrying  on  this  process  through  the  unceasing 
application  of  the  word  of  God  and  divine  truth,  and  hy  the  reflex 
act  of  observing  the  operations  and  ajfections  of  your  own  mind 
while  the  work  of  bringing  divine  truth  to  bear  upon  it  is  going 
on,  you  will  undoubtedly  acquire  much  real  practical  available 
knowledge  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  the  truths  which  it  was 
intended  to  unfold,  and  this  knowledge  is  of  essential  importance 


TEMPTATION. 


73 


to  all  who  are  allowed  to  be  put  in  trust  with  the  gospel.  Divine 
truth  is  then  only  applied  to  its  right  purpose  when  it  is  employed 
in  this  way,  then  alone  is  it  fully  seen  in  its  proper  light  and  in  its 
true  character,  and  no  one  therefore  can  be  regarded  as  possessed 
of  a  full  and  competent  knowledge  of  it  unless  he  has  seen  and 
watched  the  process  of  its  being  subjected  to  such  experiments. 
It  is  your  imperative  duty,  in  accordance  with  the  injunction  which 
Paul  gave  to  Timothy,  to  flee  youthful  lusts,  which  war  against  the 
soul,  to  be  avoiding  every  appearance  of  evil,  to  be  even  already 
enduring  hardness  as  good  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.e.  to  be 
mortifying  pride  and  ambition,  self-confidence,  self-conceit,  envy, 
and  worldliness,  and  to  be  cultivating  and  cherishing  in  your  souls 
all  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  In  this  work  you  will  have  tempta¬ 
tions  to  resist  and  difficulties  to  encounter.  You  must  employ 
the  whole  armour  of  God,  especially  the  shield  of  faith  and  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  i.e.,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  ^Spirit, 
you  are  to  be  ever  employing  the  word  of  God  and  the  truths 
which  it  unfolds ;  and  by  carrying  on  this  process  faithfully  and 
conscientiously,  and  by  reflecting  on  its  nature,  its  manifestations, 
and  its  results,  you  will  not  only  grow  in  grace  and  in  meetness 
for  heaven,  but  you  will  acquire  a  much  more  thorough  insight 
into  the  word  of  God  and  the  truths  of  Scripture,  and  be  much 
more  fully  prepared  than  otherwise  you  could  have  been  for  wield¬ 
ing  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the 
edification  of  Christ’s  body. 

These  are  the  processes  by  which  theologians  are  made,  and  by 
which  men  are  prepared  for  the  work  of  the  ministry — prayer, 
meditation,  and  temptation,  in  the  sense  in  which  Luther  used  it, 
and  in  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  explain  it.  Prayer  and  the 
actual  application  of  divine  truth  for  resisting  temptation  and 
mortifying  sin  are  matters  of  express  and  positive  obligation  upon 
all  men  considered  simply  as  private  Christians,  who  are  called 
upon  to  work  out  their  own  salvation,  and  irrespective  of  any 
regard  to  their  use  as  means  of  acquiring  a  full  acquaintance  with 
theology.  If  you  have  been  brought  at  all  to  realise  something 
of  your  relation  to  God,  your  need  of  mercy  and  grace,  and  your 
obligations  to  prepare  for  death  and  judgment,  if  you  have  for 
yourselves  entered  on  the  way  to  Zion, — and  unless  all  this  is  the 
case,  your  profession  of  preparing  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  is  a 


74 


FIFTH  LECTURE. 


mockery  of  Him  who  yet  is  not  mocked, — then  you  will  certainly 
abound  in  prayer  and  supplication  for  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
to  guide  you  into  all  truth  and  holiness,  and  you  will  faithfully 
apply  divine  truth  to  enable  you  to  die  more  and  more  unto  sin, 
and  to  live  more  and  more  unto  righteousness.  And  this  work  of 
praying  for  the  Spirit  and  acquiring  an  experimental  knowledge 
of  divine  truth  by  applying  it  to  its  great  practical  purpose  and 
observing  the  nature  and  results  of  the  process,  must  go  on  during 
all  your  lives.  The  duty  of  increasing  in  knowledge  and  in  holi¬ 
ness  continues  ever  to  attach  to  you,  until  you  are  made  perfect  in 
holiness.  You  are  to  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  and  through  the 
truth,  and  therefore  it  is  your  duty  to  abound  in  prayer,  and  to 
be  bringing  divine  truth  to  bear  upon  every  department  of  your 
nature  and  every  circumstance  of  your  situation ;  and  by  this  pro¬ 
cess,  faithfully  pursued,  will  you  assuredly  acquire  much  sound 
knowledge  of  Christian  theology,  and  make  the  best  preparation 
for  the  work  of  the  ministry. 


LECTURE  VI. 


PRAYEE,  MEDITATION,  AND  TEMPTATION. 

llfEDITATION,  as  including  learning,  reading,  and  reflection, 
and  especially  reading  and  reflecting  upon  the  Word  of  God, 
so  as  to  understand  the  meaning  of  its  statements  and  the  import 
of  its  teaching,  is  that  which  in  the  ordinary  relation  of  cause  and 
effect  bears  most  directly  and  immediately  upon  the  acquisition  of 
theological  knowledge.  Prayer  and  the  experimental  application 
of  divine  truth  are  exercises  which  mainly  and  principally  lie 
between  God  and  your  own  souls,  in  which  it  is  with  him  you 
have  to  do,  and  where  little  aid  or  assistance  can  be  derived  from 
your  fellow-men.  In  meditation  or  study  you  may  derive  much 
assistance  from  others,  by  their  interpreting  and  explaining  the 
word  of  God  to  you,  illustrating  and  establishing  the  truths  which 
are  taught  there,  counselling  you  as  to  the  books  that  ought  to 
be  read,  and  the  way  in  which  they  may  be  read  and  studied  to 
most  advantage,  and  in  various  ways  affording  you  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  your  theological  studies  the  benefit  and  the 
experience  acquired  by  those  who  have  already  given  some 
attention  to  the  investigation  of  these  subjects.  And  this  is  just 
in  substance  a  description  of  the  exercises  in  which  we  are  to  be 
engaged  in  this  place.  In  entering  upon  so  wide  a  field  as  the 
study  of  theology,  it  may  be  reasonably  supposed  that  you  may 
derive  some  benefit  from  the  advice  and  assistance  of  those  who 
have  already  more  or  less  extensively  traversed  it.  Were  you  to 
let  yourselves  loose  upon  the  wide  field  of  theological  literature 
without  system  and  without  directions,  you  would  be  in  some 
danger  of  losing  yourselves  amid  the  multiplicity  of  objects  that 
might  attract  your  attention  and  call  forth  your  curiosity.  And 
hence  the  necessity  of  studying  upon  a  regular  plan,  and  having 


76 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


some  directions  laid  before  you  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  the  plan  may  be  most  successfully  prosecuted.  It  is  only 
by  your  own  reading  and  study,  accompanied  by  the  teaching  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  that  you  can  become  theologians.  You  must 
read  and  reflect.  Theological  knowledge  cannot  be  put  into  you, 
ab  extra,  without  your  own  faculties  being  called  into  vigorous 
exercise.  It  consists  radically  and  essentially  in  the  formation  of 
correct  judgments,  as  to  the  meaning  and  import  of  statements  in 
God’s  word,  on  which  different  interpretations  have  been  put. 
And  therefore  the  acquisition  of  it  necessarily  implies  that  you 
yourselves  study  the  word  of  God,  make  use  of  all  the  appropriate 
means  by  which  its  meaning  may  be  ascertained  and  established, 
estimate  the  evidence  bearing  upon  all  the  subjects  investigated, 
and  form  your  own  judgments  regarding  them.  You  have  no 
right,  and  still  less  are  you  under  any  obligation,  to  take  upon 
trust  the  views  of  any  man  or  body  of  men,  without  having 
satisfied  yourself  of  their  accordance  with  the  only  standard  of 
truth.  It  is  with  God  you  have  to  do,  it  is  to  him  you  are 
responsible,  and  him  alone  you  are  to  follow.  “  God  alone  is 
Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  anything  contrary  to 
his  word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship”  (Con.  c.  xx. 
s.  2).  You  are  then  to  exert  your  own  faculties,  and  to  exert 
them  on  your  own  responsibility  to  God,  that  under  the  guidance 
of  his  Spirit  you  may  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  his  truth,  and 
that  this  be  done,  and  done  intelligently,  you  must  yourselves 
carefully  investigate  all  the  subjects  to  which  your  attention  may 
be  directed,  and  bring  them,  in  the  exercise  of  your  own  faculties, 
to  be  tried  by  the  standard  of  God’s  word.  You  might  be  led  by 
the  authority  of  others  and  the  influence  of  circumstances  to  adopt 
and  profess  a  system  of  views  that  is  really  in  accordance  with 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  while  you  had  never  fairly  and  impartially 
exercised  your  faculties  upon  the  subject,  and  could  give  no 
satisfactory  proof  from  the  word  of  God  of  the  views  which  you 
professed  to  entertain.  But  such  a  result  would  neither  be  satis¬ 
factory  to  yourselves  nor  to  the  church  of  which  you  might 
become  ministers.  The  church  of  course  does  not  wish  any  to 
enter  her  service  except  those  who,  after  diligent  study  and  careful 
investigation,  are  satisfied  that  the  doctrines  of  her  public  profes- 


MEDITA  TIOX. 


77 


sion  are  in  accordance  with  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  can  give 
some  account  of  the  scriptural  grounds  on  which  they  maintain 
them,  and  it  is  supremely  important  that  in  the  prosecution  of 
your  studies,  you  should  be  ever  animated  by  a  sincere  love  of 
truth,  by  a  real  and  honest  desire  to  ascertain  what  is  the  mind 
and  will  of  God.  You  are  not  indeed  to  suppose  that  you  are  at 
liberty  to  adopt  any  opinions  you  choose,  or  that  it  is  not -a 
matter  of  great  importance  what  views  you  adopt  upon  theo¬ 
logical  subjects,  provided  only  they  are  sincerely  held.  You  are 
under  obligation  to  know  aright  the  will  of  God,  and  are  respon¬ 
sible  and  justly  punishable  for  mistaking  it,  just  because  God 
requires  that  of  you,  and  because  he  has  made  sufficient  provision 
for  guiding  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  all  who  honestly  and 
faithfully  improve  the  means  and  opportunities  with  which  he 
has  furnished  them.  There  is  sincerity  in  error  as  well  as  in 
truth,  but  still  error  is  error,  and  truth  is  truth,  the  one  in 
opposition  to  God’s  revealed  will,  and  the  other  in  accordauce 
with  it.  The  knowledge  of  the  truth  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  is 
traceable  to  or  connected  with  the  right  and  honest  exercise  of 
our  faculties,  and  the  faithful  and  conscientious  improvement  of 
our  opportunities,  while  the  adoption  and  maintenance  of  error 
is  owing  universally  to  some  failure  in  these  respects  ;  to  the  want 
of  a  sincere  and  honest  desire  to  know  the  truth,  to  the  operation 
of  some  perverting  and  misleading  influence,  or  to  some  failure 
in  the  diligence,  caution,  and  perseverance  with  which  our  faculties 
have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  investigation.  This  is  an 
important  principle  that  ought  not  to  be  lost  sight  of,  especially 
in  judging  of  ourselves,  and  in  regulating  our  own  conduct,  in 
impressing  upon  our  own  minds  the  necessity  of  honestly  and 
purely  searching  after  truth,  guarding  against  everything  that 
might  mislead  us,  and  exercising  our  faculties  with  all  due  care 
and  caution  upon  the  various  subjects  which  we  may  be  called 
upon  to  examine. 

But  some  caution  and  forbearance  are  necessary  in  applying 
this  principle  of  the  sinfulness  of  error  in  forming  a  judgment  of 
others  whose  views  we  may  reckon  erroneous.  It  is  true  that  all 
error  is  sinful,  and  has  arisen  from  something  sinful  on  the  part 
of  those  by  whom  it  is  maintained.  But  it  would  be  very  unwar¬ 
rantable  and  offensive  to  be  making  a  direct  and  personal  applica- 


78 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


tion  of  this  principle  to  all  those  who,  we  may  be  firmly  persuaded, 
entertain  erroneous  views.  Men  are  undoubtedly  entitled,  and 
indeed  bound,  to  exercise  their  own  faculties,  and  to  form  their 
own  judgments  in  regard  to  all  subjects  that  may  be  presented  to 
them,  without  being  subject  to  any  authoritative  control  upon  the 
part  of  their  fellow- men,  or  of  any  but  God  and  those  who  can 
produce  God's  commission.  The  connection  between  the  under¬ 
standing  and  the  will,  the  investigation  of  those  causes  and  influ¬ 
ences  that  operate  upon  the  formation  of  men’s  opinions,  bears 
upon  some  of  the  deepest  and  darkest  mysteries  of  the  human 
spirit,  involves  points  that  may  be  imperfectly  understood,  even 
by  those  to  whom  they  attach,  and  can  in  general  be  very  imper¬ 
fectly  comprehended  by  others.  They  can  be  certainly  known  in 
individual  cases  only  by  Him  who  searcheth  the  hearts  of  the 
children  of  men,  who  understandeth  our  very  thoughts  afar  off. 
The  probability  that  men  may  have  yielded  to  perverting  and 
misleading  influences  in  forming  their  opinions,  is  ordinarily 
just  in  proportion  to  their  general  character,  to  the  integrity, 
candour,  and  love  of  truth  which  they  usually  manifest.^  We 
ought  ever  to  remember  that  we  are  all  liable  to  yield  to  pervert¬ 
ing  influences,  and  the  operation  of  collateral  or  adventitious 
circumstances  in  the  formation  of  our  opinions ;  and  this  should 
teach  us  charity  and  forbearance  in  judging  of  others  whom  we 
may  believe  to  be  in  error.  Upon  the  ground  of  those  various 
considerations,  it  is  manifestly  improper  and  unwarrantable  to  be 
habitually  and  ordinarily  applying  the  principle,  however  true 
in  itself,  that  all  error  is  sinful,  to  others  whose  views  we  may 
reckon  erroneous.  Within  certain  limits,  and  when  there  is  no 
jjalpable  outward  evidence  of  a  want  of  integrity  and  of  due  care 
in  the  formation  of  opinions,  it  is  but  reasonable  to  assume  that 
those  who  may  differ  from  us  have  been  as  honest  and  impartial 
in  the  formation  of  their  opinions  as  ourselves,  and  though 
abstractly  we  may  and  should  hold  the  general  principle,  that 
where  there  is  error  there  is  sin,  yet  the  sin  may,  in  many  cases, 
be  in  some  corner  so  obscure  and  inaccessible  as  to  be  cognisable 
only  by  Him  who  searcheth  all  things ;  so  that  men,  in  fairness, 

^  Apparently  the  author’s  meaning  is,  that  in  proportion  to  a  man’s  candour 
and  love  of  truth,  is  his  anxiety  to  take  all  arguments  into  account,  and  therefore 
liis  liability  to  be  unconsciously  misled  b}^  adventitious  circumstances. — Ed. 


MEDITATION. 


79 


should  content  themselves  with  refuting  the  error  without  pro¬ 
nouncing  upon  the  character  and  motives  of  the  errorists.  When 
men  profess  to  have  a  sincere  desire  to  know  the  truth,  and  have 
used  honestly,  so  far  as  man  can  judge,  the  proper  means  for 
attaining  to  a  knowledge  of  it, — when  there  is  no  public  tangible 
proof  of  the  falsehood  of  their  professions,  they  are  entitled  to  be 
treated  as  honest  men,  and  should  not  be  denounced  as  guilty  of 
sin  because  of  the  errors  in  which  we  may  believe  them  to  be 
involved.  In  short,  the  right  principle  upon  this  point  is,  that 
before  we  can  be  warranted  in  personally  applying  to  men  who 
hold  erroneous  opinions  the  maxim  that  all  error  is  sin,  we  should 
have  some  other  proof  besides  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  in 
error, — proof  such  as  men,  who  cannot  see  into  the  heart,  may 
clearly  apprehend  and  estimate,  and  which  distinctly  establishes 
against  them  some  plain  deviation  from  the  course  which  an 
honest  love  of  truth,  and  a  faithful  application  of  the  right 
means  for  discovering  it,  would  have  produced.  But  while  we 
should  be  careful  of  applying  to  others  the  maxim  that  all 
error  originates  in  sin,  and  is  traceable  to  something  sinful  as 
its  cause,  and  while  its  application  to  others  should  be  in 
general  left  to  him  who  alone  can  apply  it  accurately,  yet 
the  maxim  is  undoubtedly  true  abstractly,  and  it  is  right  that 
we  should  apply  it  to  ourselves  in  regulating  and  in  explaining 
our  own  conduct.  We  may  be  firmly  persuaded  that  we  will  not 
fall  into  error  except  through  some  sin  on  our  own  part,  through 
some  sinful  want  of  an  honest  and  paramount  love  of  truth, 
through  some  sinful  negligence  or  oversight  in  the  exercise  of  our 
faculties,  or  in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  or  through  the  indul¬ 
gence  of  some  sinful  desire,  or  in  the  prosecution  of  some  sinful 
object  misleading  and  perverting  us.  Although  there  is  a  great 
deal  of  that  which  ought  to  pass  among  men  for  honesty  and 
uprightness  in  the  formation  of  opinions,  and  which  ought  to  pass 
as  such,  just  because  men  ought  to  be  deeply  conscious  of  their 
own  liability  to  be  misled,  and  are  neither  qualified  nor  entitled 
to  judge  of  the  hearts  of  others,  yet  we  believe  there  is  very  little 
of  pure  and  thorough  impartiality  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  that 
men's  opinions,  whether  right  or  wrong,  are  but  seldom  the  result 
of  a  purely  honest  and  impartial  consideration  of  the  proper 
grounds  on  which  they  ought  to  rest,  uninfluenced  b}^  collateral 


80 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


and  adventitious  circumstances.  Our  opinions  in  most  cases  have 
been  largely  determined  by  the  circumstances  in  which  we  have 
been  placed  and  the  influences  under  which  we  have  been  brought ; 
and  men  who  know  themselves  would  be  slow  of  asserting  that 
their  opinions,  even  those  which  profess  to  be  built  upon  the  word 
of  God,  would  certainly  have  been  the  same  as  they  now  are,  had 
their  lot  been  cast  in  a  different  sphere.  The  practical  use  of 
these  considerations  is,  that  remembering  that  all  error  is  sinful, 
and  that  there  are  many  influences  continually  at  work  to  lead 
you  into  error,  you  strive  to  preserve  a  deep  sense  of  your  respon¬ 
sibility  to  God  for  all  the  opinions  you  form,  to  cherish  a  supreme 
and  paramount  desire  to  know  his  will  and  to  ascertain  the  truth, 
and  that  you  guard  carefully  against  any  influence  that  might 
mislead  or  pervert  you.  Let  no  opinions  be  taken  up  hastily  and 
rashly  under  the  influence  of  outward  circumstances,  or  to  have 
any  selfish  or  party  object.  Let  there  be  a  constant  reference  to 
the  word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  standard  of  truth.  Let  all 
due  care  and  diligence  be  employed  to  understand  the  meaning 
and  import  of  its  statements,  let  a  constant  sense  of  your  depend- 
ance  upon  the  Spirit  of  truth  be  preserved,  and  let  all  your  medi¬ 
tations  and  all  your  investigations  be  accompanied  with  private 
prayer  for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Never  forget  that 
God’s  Spirit  alone  can  guard  you  against  the  temptations  to  error 
which  you  have  to  encounter  from  without  and  from  within,  that 
sound  theological  knowledge,  scriptural  truth  must  be  sought  and 
obtained  from  Him,  that  the  secret  of  the  Lord  is  with  them  that 
fear  him,  and  that  he  will  shew  them  his  covenant.  Take  care 
that  you  grieve  not,  that  you  quench  not,  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
neglecting  to  cherish  a  due  sense  of  your  dependence  upon  him, 
by  indifference  about  really  enjoying  his  guidance  and  ascertaining 
his  mind  and  will,  by  restraining  prayer,  by  regarding  any  iniquity 
in  your  hearts,  by  indulging  in  sloth  or  pride,  in  self-seeking  and 
self-confidence,  by  failing  to  exercise  your  faculties,  and  to  improve 
your  opportunities  under  a  deep  sense  of  your  responsibility  to 
Him,  and  with  a  sincere  determination  to  consecrate  yourselves 
soul  and  body  to  his  glory  and  service.  It  is  by  such  means  as 
these,  and  under  such  impressions  and  desires  as  these,  that  your 
theological  studies  ought  to  be  conducted,  and  it  is  only  when  you 
are  enabled  to  abound  and  to  persevere  in  the  use  of  these  means. 


MEDITATION. 


81 


and  in  the  maintenance  and  habitual  manifestation  of  this  frame 
of  mind,  that  you  have  reasonable  ground  to  expect  that  you  will 
be  enabled  to  attain  to  a  thorough  knowledge  of  God’s  revealed 
will,  and  be  fitted  to  become  able  ministers  of  the  New  Testament, 
not  only  having  yourselves  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  is  eternal  life,  but  able  to  teach  others  also. 

Erroneous  opinions  upon  any  of  the  subjects  concerning  which 
God  has  given  us  information,  are  not  only  sinful  and  displeasing 
to  him,  but  injurious  to  ourselves,  adverse  to  our  spiritual  nourish¬ 
ment  and  growth  in  grace,  and  are  therefore  to  be  carefully 
guarded  against  in  the  use  of  all  appropriate  means,  by  keeping 
our  hearts,  and  by  regulating  our  conduct.  Our  Saviour  has  said, 
“  Woe  unto  the  world  because  of  offences !  for  it  must  needs  be 
that  offences  come ;  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  offence 
cometh”  (Matt,  xviii.  7).  An  offence  here  means  anything  that 
causes  or  tends  to  cause  to  stumble  and  fall,  or  to  turn  aside  from 
the  right  path  in  matters  connected  with  God  and  eternity.  And 
of  the  offences  in  this  sense  which  are  so  plentifully  spread  over 
the  history  of  the  church,  errors  and  heresies  form  no  inconsider¬ 
able  portion.  The  erroneous  opinions  that  have  been  broached, 
directly  and  in  themselves,  by  their  own  proper  tendency  and 
results,  and  the  fact  that  so  many  erroneous  opinions  all  profess- 
inof  to  be  derived  from  one  and  the  same  source  or  standard  have 
been  maintained,  have  proved  great  stumbling-blocks  in  every 
age,  have  contributed  largely  to  pervert  men,  and  to  lead  them 
astray,  and  thus  to  endanger  their  eternal  welfare.  When  our 
Saviour  said  it  must  needs  be  that  offences  come,”  the  leading 
idea  he  meant  to  convey  was  merely  the  certainty  that  in  the 
actual  condition  of  things,  in  the  actual  constitution  of  the  world, 
and  of  man’s  nature,  it  would  happen  that  stumbling-blocks  would 
be  laid  in  men’s  way,  and  that  many  would,  in  point  of  fact,  fall 
over  them,  with  perhaps  the  additional  idea  insinuated  that  even 
these  offences  would  be  over-ruled  of  God  for  accomplishing  his 
own  purposes.  But  the  great  lesson  which  the  statement  is  fitted 
to  impress  is,  that  however  certain  or  necessary  offences  may  be, 
and  to  whatever  extent  this  may  be  over-ruled  for  good,  they 
involve,  at  all  times,  great  and  heinous  guilt  on  the  part  of  those 
who  are  responsible  for  them.  And  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
for  the  evils  which  have  arisen — the  stumbling-blocks  which  have 


82 


SIXTH  LECTURE, 


been  thrown  in  men’s  way — by  controversies  and  divisions,  those 
must  bear  the  chief  responsibility,  and  incur  most  fully  the  woe 
which  our  Saviour  has  denounced,  who,  by  adopting  and  maintain¬ 
ing  opinions  that  were  erroneous  and  inconsistent  with  the  standard 
of  God’s  word,  have  rendered  contention  necessary,  and  thereby 
made  themselves  the  real  authors  or  causes  of  the  offences,  of  the 
stumbling-blocks  that  have  been  thrown  in  the  way  of  individuals 
and  churches,  tended  to  mar  their  progress  in  knowledge,  right¬ 
eousness,  and  holiness,  and  to  obstruct  the  great  ends  for  which  they 
ought  to  have  lived  and  laboured.  Let  this  responsibility  weigh 
deeply  upon  your  minds,  and  let  it  prompt  you  to  a  diligent  and 
faithful  use  of  all  those  means,  whereby  through  God’s  blessing  the 
woe  denounced  by  our  Saviour  may  be  avoided,  and  our  spiritual 
nourishment  and  the  peace  and  welfare  of  Christ’s  church  may  be 
advanced. 


PREVIOUS  STUDIES - LATIN,  GREEK,  AND  HEBREW. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  lay  before  you  an  outline  of  the  wide  field 
comprehended  in  the  study  of  theological  science,  and  the  processes 
by  the  prosecution  of  which  such  a  knowledge  of  theology  as  may 
fit  you  for  becoming  useful  ministers  of  the  gospel  is  to  be  acquired, 
comprehending,  as  the  explanation  of  these  processes  does,  a  state¬ 
ment  of  the  motives  by  which  you  ought  to  be  animated,  and  of 
the  spirit  in  which  your  whole  theological  studies  ought  to  be  con¬ 
ducted.  I  would  now  wish  to  lay  before  you  a  few  practical  direc¬ 
tions  as  to  the  prosecution  of  your  studies,  not  as  to  the  prosecution 
of  the  study  of  any  particular  department  of  theology,  for  the  dif¬ 
ferent  branches  of  the  science  may,  in  some  respects,  require  special 
directions  more  immediately  applicable  to  them  severally,  but 
bearing  upon  the  mode  of  prosecuting  your  studies  generally. 
It  is  assumed  not  only  that  you  have  gone  through  a  curri¬ 
culum  of  study  in  literature  and  philosophy,  but  that  you  actually 
possess  a  respectable  measure  of  acquaintance  with  the  subjects 
you  profess  to  have  studied.  In  authors  who  have  written  upon 
the  general  subject  of  the  study  of  theology,  these  topics  are  usually 
adverted  to  under  the  head  of  ‘rr^ocra/Ssu/Aara,  or  preliminary  instruc¬ 
tions,  which  ought  to  be  mastered  before  men  begin  the  proper 
study  of  theology.  In  so  far  as  you  are  not  possessed  of  a  respect¬ 
able  acquaintance  with  all  those  subjects,  you  are  not  fully  prepared 


PREVIOUS  STUDIES 


83 


for  entering  upon  theological  study ;  and  in  so  far  as  your  know¬ 
ledge  of  them  is  still  partly  defective,  it  is  proper,  in  regard  to  some 
of  them  at  least,  that  you  should  even  now  be  giving  some  degree 
of  attention  to  the  object  of  repairing  your  deficiencies. 

The  most  important  branches  of  your  previous  studies,  in  so  far 
as  concerns  their  immediate  use  and  bearing  upon  the  prosecution 
of  the  study  of  theology,  are  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
languages,  and  an  acquaintance  with  mental  philosophy,  as,  in¬ 
cluding  the  powers  and  faculties,  the  capacities  and  susceptibilities 
of  the  mind,  the  principles  and  laws  bearing  upon  the  right  use 
and  application  of  these  powers  and  susceptibilities  upon  investi¬ 
gating  truth,  judging  of  evidence,  and  establishing  duty.  No  man 
can  be  regarded  as  having  any  pretensions  to  the  character  of  a 
well-educated  and  accomplished  theologian  who  has  not  read  a 
considerable  number  of  works  which  exist  only  in  the  Latin  lan¬ 
guage;  and  hence  the  importance— we  might  almost  say  the 
necessity  in  the  prosecution  of  theological  study — of  being  so 
familiar  with  Latin  as  to  be  able  to  read  ordinary  theological 
Latin  works,  without  finding  much  more  difficulty,  or  requiring  to 
spend  much  more  time  in  the  perusal  of  them,  than  you  would  on 
works  in  your  own  tongue.  This  is  the  sort  of  measure  of  the 
familiarity  which  you  ought  to  possess  with  Latin ;  and  such  a 
degree  of  acquaintance  with  it  you  will  find  a  most  important 
advantage  in  the  prosecution  of  your  studies.  In  regard  to  Greek, 
there  are  fewer  books  in  this  languagje  than  in  Latin  which  it  is 
necessary  for  you  to  read  for  the  mere  sake  of  the  information 
they  contain ;  but  the  language,  as  a  language,  it  is  still  more 
indispensable  that  you  should  thoroughly  understand,  because  it 
is  that  in  which  the  most  important  part  of  the  inspired  Scriptures 
were  composed.  A  man’s  real  theological  knowledge  may  be  said 
practically  and  substantially  to  be  measured  by  his  real  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  Greek  Testament ;  and  in  order  to  understand  aright 
the  Greek  Testament,  it  is  of  course  indispensable  that  he  be 
familiar  with  the  Greek  language.  And  this  leads  us  to  advert  to 
the  general  subject  of  the  necessity  of  an  acquaintance  with  the 
original  languages  in  which  the  word  of  God  has  been  given  us  by 
its  authors.  The  Old  Testament,  you  are  aware,  is  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three  short  passages 
in  Chaldee;  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek.  The  Hebrew  Old 


84 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


Testament  and  the  Greek  New  Testament  constitute  the  word  of 
God  given  by  the  inspiration  of  his  Spirit,  and  forming  the  only 
authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  will  of  God  is  to  be 
learned  authentically  only  from  an  examination  of  books  written 
in  these  languages ;  and  hence  it  follows  at  once  that  every  one 
who  is  really  desirous  to  know  the  will  of  God,  and  to  know  it 
thoroughly  and  authentically,  and  especially  every  one  who  aspires 
to  be  a  religious  instructor  of  others,  is  bound  to  acquire  such  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  as  may  qualify  him  to  derive  his 
knowledofe  of  God’s  will  at  once  from  the  fountain-head,  or  at  least 
to  be  able  to  test  all  the  views  that  may  be  pressed  upon  him,  by 
a  reference  to  the  only  infallible  standard,  and  to  be  qualified  to 
defend,  if  necessary,  his  convictions  upon  religious  subjects  from 
the  same  sources.  A  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  any  other 
language  merely  shews  the  interpretation  put  upon  them  by  those 
who  have  executed  the  translation ;  and  though  most  translations 
of  the  Scriptures  into  modern  languages  give  a  sufficiently  clear 
and  correct  exposition  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  in  his  word  to 
serve  all  the  infinitely  important  purposes  of  general  practical 
instruction,  yet  no  one  will  be  contented  with  a  translation  who 
desires  to  be  thoroughly  versant  in  divine  revelation,  and  who  is 
called  upon  to  be  prepared  to  give  a  reason  of  his  faith,  and  to 
defend  God’s  truth  against  the  assaults  of  error.  It  is  true  that 
many,  very  many,  have  been  guided  by  God’s  Spirit  into  all  truth  ; 
have  been  led  to  embrace  Christ,  and  to  become  meet  for  heaven  ; 
have  attained  that  knowledge  of  God  and  Jesus  Christ,  which  is 
eternal  life ;  who  know  God’s  will  only  through  the  medium  of  a 
translation.  Nay,  more,  it  is  certain  that  God  has  honoured  with 
singular  usefulness  as  ministers  of  the  gospel  men  whom  he  him¬ 
self  had  called  to  labour  in  his  vineyard,  although  they  knew 
nothing  of  Hebrew  or  Greek. 

But  it  is  true  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  matters,  that  God’s 
doings  are  not  the  rule  of  our  duty,  and  that  there  rests  an 
imperative  obligation  upon  all  who  desire  the  office  of  a  bishop  to 
acquire,  if  they  have  the  means  and  the  opportunity,  a  knowledge 
of  God’s  revelation  as  it  came  from  himself,  and  of  course  in  the 
original  languages.  This  is  plainly  comprehended  in  the  more 
general  obligation  undoubtedly  attaching  to  them  to  acquire  as 
full  and  accurate  a  knowledge  of  God’s  revelation  as  their  circum- 


PREVIOUS  STUDIES. 


85 


stances  admit  of,  before  they  venture  to  engage  in  the  instruction 
of  others.  I  trust  you  have  all  knowledge  enough  of  the  classic 
models  of  antiquity  to  be  able  to  appreciate  the  difference  between 
the  original  and  a  translation,  in  so  far  as  the  perception  and 
enjoyment  of  literary  beauty  and  excellence,  the  gratification  of 
the  taste  and  the  emotions  are  concerned.  This  applies  in  all  its 
extent  and  in  full  force  to  the  difference  between  the  Scriptures  in 
the  original  and  in  a  translation,  however  generally  faithful  and 
accurate.  And  w^ere  you  disposed  to  study  the  Scriptures  merely 
as  literary  productions  and  objects  of  taste,  you  would  be  called 
upon  in  fairness,  with  a  view  to  your  own  enjoyment  and  gratifica¬ 
tion,  to  examine  them  in  the  original  languages.  But  this  of 
course  is  a  low  and  inadequate  view  of  the  subject.  It  is  a  matter 
of  imperative  obligation  that  you  should  study  the  word  of  God  for 
your  own  salvation  and  that  of  others.  In  a  matter  of  such 
importance  it  is  incumbent  upon  you  to  take  every  practicable 
security  for  understanding  it  correctly  and  thoroughly,  and  this 
necessarily  implies  an  acquaintance  with  the  original,  especially  in 
those  who,  in  addition  to  the  general  obligation  attaching  to  all 
men  according  to  their  circumstances  to  acquire  as  complete  a 
knowledge  as  they  can  of  God/s  word,  are  set  for  the  defence  of  the 
gospel  and  the  instruction  of  others.  Whenever  a  difficulty  or 
difference  of  opinion  arises  as  to  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  the 
ultimate  appeal  must  always  be  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  text ; 
and  the  minister  who  cannot  carry  the  appeal  to  that  tribunal,  and 
discuss  it  there,  must  be  regarded  as  destitute  of  most  important 
auxiliaries  and  influences  for  the  right  discharge  of  his  duties,  for 
the  proper  execution  of  his  functions  ;  and  if  God  in  his  providence 
has  given  him  opportunities  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  origi¬ 
nal  languages,  and  if  he  through  carelessness,  sloth,  or  perhaps 
spiritual  pride,  has  failed  to  improve  them,  he  is  justly  chargeable 
with  a  grievous  dereliction  of  duty.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
our  common  English  version  of  the  Scriptures,  though  one  of  the 
best  that  has  been  made,  and  though  quite  sufficient  for  fully 
instructing  the  people  in  what  they  are  to  believe  concerning  God, 
and  in  the  duty  he  requires  of  them,  conveys  in  many  instances  the 
meaning  of  the  original  obscurely  and  ambiguously,  and  in  not  a 
few  cases  with  some  mixture  of  error  and  inaccuracy.^ 

^  Goode,  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,  vol.  i.,  p.  112,  on  2  Tim.  i.  13. 


86 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


And  hence  the  necessity  of  a  constant  appeal  to  the  original  in 
order  that  the  mind  of  God  may  be  fully  and  correctly  known,  and 
may  be  set  forth  with  the  authority  and  accuracy  which  ought  to 
attach  to  the  office  and  functions  of  the  ministry.  The  great 
object  of  the  ministry  is  to  explain,  enforce,  and  apply  the  state¬ 
ments  contained  in  God’s  word.  Their  first  duty,  therefore,  is  to 
use  the  best  means  of  attaining  the  full  and  certain  knowledge  of 
their  meaning.  It  may  be  reasonably  doubted  whether  any 
minister  who  has  been  favoured  in  providence  with  opportunities 
of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  is  warranted  to  go 
to  the  pulpit  and  profess  to  open  up  the  mind  of  God  in  his  word, 
without  having  satisfied  himself  by  an  examination  of  the  original 
what  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  the  passage  is,  in  place  of  taking  it 
upon  trust  from  others,  whether  translators  or  commentators. 

Commentaries  indeed  often  contain  information  as  to  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  original,  when  it  may  be  given  ambiguously  or  incor¬ 
rectly  in  the  translation  commented  on;  but  one  who  is  himself 
ignorant  of,  or  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with,  the  original 
languages,  can  make  no  right  use  of  what  he  may  find  on  the 
subject  in  the  commentary,  and  of  course  is  as  much  dependent 
upon  the  commentator  as  otherwise  he  would  have  been  upon  the 
translators.  The  grand  object  of  all  your  studies  should  be  that 
you  may  clearly  and  correctly  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  the  various  statements  which  compose  the  Bible,  and 
may  be  qualified  to  open  up  their  true  meaning  to  others,  and  to 
defend  it  against  the  assaults  of  adversaries ;  and  an  obviously 
essential  part  of  this  preparation  is  an  acquaintance  with  the 
original  languages.  There  is  a  great  responsibility  connected 
with  ascertaining  and  setting  forth  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
word,  and  a  proper  sense  of  this  responsibility  will  constrain  men 
to  adopt  the  best  and  surest  means  of  effectinoc  this,  though  it 
may  require  of  them  some  self-denial  and  sacrifice.  The  duty, 
then,  of  acquiring  competent  knowledge  of  the  original  languages 
of  Scripture  we  urge  upon  you,  not  merely  because  the  possession 
and  application  of  this  knowledge  is  fitted  to  afford  you  much 
satisfaction  and  enjoyment,  not  merely  because  it  is  creditable  and 
becoming  in  a  public  instructor  of  others,  and  because  the  want  of 
it  is  discreditable  and  dangerous ;  but  on  the  ground  of  a  still 
higher  and  more  solemn  consideration,  viz.,  that  by  the  neglect  of 


PREVIOUS  STUDIES. 


87 


acquiring  it;  you  are  failing  to  do  all  that  you  can  to  prepare  for 
attaining  to  the  fullest,  firmest,  and  most  rational  acquaintance 
with  divine  truth,  and  are  thereby  indicating  that  you  have  not 
a  due  sense  of  the  responsibility  connected  with  the  infinitely 
important  object  of  ascertaining  the  mind  of  God  from  his  inspired 
word.  You  have  all  opportunities  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of 
the  original  languages  of  Scripture,  and  on  the  ground  which  we 
have  stated,  you  are  all  hound  to  embrace  and  to  improve  them. 
It  is  not,  of  course,  to  be  expected  that  all  the  ministers  of  a 
church  should  become  profound  philologists,  though  it  is  most 
desirable  that  every  church  should  have  some  men  who  have 
given  careful  and  lengthened  attention  to  philological  studies,  and 
may  thus  be  qualified  to  defend  truth  against  the  most  learned 
opponents  ;  but  it  is  reasonable  that  all  the  miuisters  of  the 
gospel  who  are  favoured  in  Providence  with  the  necessary  oppor¬ 
tunities,  should  possess  such  a  knowledge  of  the  original  tongues 
as  may  enable  them  fully  to  satisfy  themselves  as  to  the  certainty 
of  the  grounds  on  which  they  hold  their  convictions,  and  to  qualify 
them  to  appreciate  and  employ  aright  the  profound  researches  of 
others.  Of  the  Greek  language  you  have  all  acquired  some 
knowledge  already,  and  that  knowledge  it  will  be  incumbent  upon 
most  of  you  to  increase  and  extend,  especially  by  the  careful 
study  of  the  Greek  Testament  itself,  and  other  Greek  works, 
which,  being  composed  in  a  similar  style  and  diction,  i.e.  with  a 
large  admixture  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  are  more  particularly 
fitted  to  afford  assistance  in  studying  the  philology  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  principal  work  of  this  kind  is  what  is  commonly 
called  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  a  work  which 
occupies  this  very  peculiar  and  important  place  in  the  study  of 
the  Scriptures  in  the  original,  that  it  is  almost  indispensable  to 
the  careful  philological  study  of  both  portions  of  the  word  of  God. 
As  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  made  when  the  Hebrew  was, 
if  not  properly  a  living  language,  yet  well  known  and  carefully 
studied,  and  when  there  were  much  greater  facilities  for  acquiring 
a  knowledge  of  it  than  there  have  been  in  subsequent  times,  it  is 
still  one  of  the  sources  from  which,  as  a  virtual  witness  to  the 
actual  U8U8  loquendi,  we  may  derive  some  knowledge  of  the 
meaning  of  Hebrew  vocables.  And  having  been  in  familiar  use 
by  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  indeed  actually 


88 


SIXTH  LECTURE. 


used  by  them  in  the  quotations  made  in  their  writings  from  the 
Old  Testament,  and  being  composed  in  the  same  dialect  or 
idiom  as  the  New  Testament  itself,  viz.,  what  has  been  called 
Hellenistic,  or  Hebrew  Greek,  it  is  fitted  to  cast  much  light  upon 
the  meaning  of  particular  words,  and  the  whole  structure  of  the 
lang^uaofe  of  the  New  Testament. 

Of  the  Hebrew  most  of  you  are  probably  still  ignorant,  and  if 
so,  it  ought  to  occupy  a  considerable  portion  of  your  attention 
during  the  present  session  —  the  Hebrew  being  not  only  the 
language  in  which  the  Old  Testament  was  written,  but  some 
knowledge  of  it  being  necessary  for  fully  understanding  the 
Hebrew  Greek  of  the  New.  It  would  be  preferable  on  many 
accounts  that  you  should  have  acquired  some  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  at  an  earlier  period  of  your  studies,  and  indeed  before 
you  entered  upon  the  proper  study  of  theology,  both  because, 
amid  the  interest  with  which  you  may  now  be  expected  to 
engage  in  your  theological  studies,  there  is  some  danger  that 
you  may  feel  the  learning  of  a  language  to  be  rather  irksome,  and 
therefore  be  apt  to  neglect  it,  and  to  fail  in  giving  it  the  requisite 
attention ;  and  because  it  would  be  desirable  that  you  should  even 
now  be  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  critical  study  of  the  Old 
Testament,  instead  of  merely  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the 
elements  of  the  Hebrew  language.  Arrangements,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  will  soon  be  made  for  accomplishing  this  desirable  object 
of  securing  that  those  who  are  contemplating  entering  upon  a 
course  of  theological  study  shall  acquire  a  competent  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  before  they  begin.  But  if  you  have  not  yet  learned 
the  Hebrew  language,  it  is  your  duty  to  do  so  now  without  any 
further  delay ;  and  if  you  are  still  very  imperfectly  acquainted 
with  it,  your  knowledge  should  without  delay  be  increased  and 
extended.  And  with  the  advantages  which  in  this  place  you  enjoy 
for  the  study  of  it,  you  will,  I  have  no  doubt,  find  it  a  most 
interesting  and  useful  occupation. 

With  regard  to  the  extent  to  which  your  study  of  the  original 
languages  ought  to  be  carried,  and  the  amount  of  acquaintance 
with  them  which  you  are  bound  to  acquire,  it  is  surely  not 
unreasonable  that  before  entering  upon  the  office  of  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  and  becoming  the  public  instructors  of  others,  you 
should  be  able  to  read  the  Scriptures  in  the  original  languages  with 


rREVIOUS  STUDIES. 


89 


ease,  without  needing  to  have  recourse  to  lexicons  or  translations. 
Without  this  measure  of  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
of  the  Scriptures,  you  may  almost  as  well  be  entirely  ignorant 
of  them ;  for  unless  you  possess  this  measure  of  acquaintance 
with  them,  you  are  scarcely  qualified  for  applying  to  any  practical 
use  critical  commentaries  upon  the  Scriptures  ;  and  what  is  perhaps 
of  still  more  importance,  until  you  are  so  familiar  with  the  original 
languages,  that  you  can  read  the  Scriptures  without  finding  it 
necessary  to  have  frequent  recourse  to  the  lexicon  or  the  translation, 
you  will  not  get  into  the  habit,  which  is  of  inestimable  value  and 
importance,  of  reading  and  studying  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  the 
words  in  which  God  has  given  them  to  us.  Let  this  then  be  the 
object  which  you  aim  at,  and  which  you  are  resolved  by  God's 
blessing  to  effect ;  and  be  assured  that  the  acquisition  of  such  a 
knowledge  of  the  original  languages  will  be  at  once  the  discharge 
of  an  important  duty,  and  a  source  of  abundant  satisfaction  and 
enjoyment  to  your  own  minds.  The  study  of  Hebrew  you  will 
prosecute  under  the  superintendence  of  one^  who  is  pre-eminently 
qualified  to  make  it  interesting  and  useful ;  and  I  will  consider  it 
part  of  my  duty  to  take  opportunities  of  ascertaining  how  far  you 
are  prepared  for  understanding  and  explaining  the  Greek  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  probably  prescribing  such  exercises  as  the  state  of  your 
efficiency  in  this  respect  may  seem  to  require. 


’  The  late  Dr  John  Duncan. — Ed. 


LECTURE  VIE 


THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE— THE  SABBATH— PEIVATE  MEETINGS. 

Having  endeavoured  to  impress  upon  you  the  obligation  of 
acquiring  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
original  languages,  such  a  knowledge  at  least  as  may  enable  you 
to  read  the  word  of  God  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  without  needing 
to  have  recourse  to  lexicons  and  translations,  and  to  appreciate  and 
profit  by  the  critical  investigations  of  learned  men,  I  would  now 
press  upon  you  with  equal  earnestness  the  necessity  of  acquiring, 
by  daily  perusal  and  study,  a  thoro\igh  familiarity  with  our  common 
English  version  of  the  Bible.  Though  it  is  not  the  standard  of 
our  faith,  and  though  it  does  not  always  bring  out  the  meaning  of 
the  original  clearly  and  correctly,  yet  it  contains  a  representation 
of  God's  revelation,  sufficiently  clear  and  accurate  for  all  the 
practical  and  devotional  purposes  for  which  a  revelation  was 
given  to  men,  viz.  that  they  might  be  led  to  glorify  God  and  to 
enjoy  him  for  ever.  And  there  are  two  grounds  upon  which  it  is 
indispensable  that,  however  familiar  you  may  be  with  the  Greek 
and  Hebrew  originals,  you  must  also  be  thoroughly  familiar  with 
the  common  English  version.  The  first  is  derived  from  a  regard 
to  your  own  personal  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace ; 
and  the  second,  from  a  regard  to  your  usefulness  to  others  in  the 
work  of  the  ministry. 

You  must  during  all  your  lives  be  seeking  to  have  deeper 
impressions  of  divine  things,  to  be  becoming  more  conversant 
with  eternal  realities,  to  hold  more  frequent  communion  with 
God,  to  have  his  word  hid  in  your  hearts  and  dwelling  in  you 
richly,  that  it  may  be  more  ready  for  constant  use  and  application 
in  leading  you  to  resist  temptation,  to  die  unto  sin  and  to  live 
unto  righteousness.  Now,  this  familiarity  with  divine  truth,  and 


THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 


91 


tliis  constant  and  ready  application  of  it  for  regulating  your 
feelings  and  your  conduct — the  whole  process  which  Luther  called 
temptation,  and  which  we  have  already  explained,  accompanied 
as  it  should  be  with  habitual  prayer — requires,  according  to  the 
ordinary  principles  of  our  constitution,  the  use  of  a  language  with 
which  we  are  and  have  long  been  thoroughly  familiar,  and  which 
we  are  in  the  constant  habit  of  using.  You  may  acquire  all  that 
knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  which  can  be  justly  represented 
as  indispensable  to  a  well  educated  minister  of  the  gospel,  and 
may  be  in  the  habit  of  using  this  knowledge  for  its  appropriate 
purpose  in  determining  precisely  and  exactly  the  opinions  you 
ought  to  form  upon  every  department  of  divine  truth,  establishing 
their  certainty,  and  defending  them  against  adversaries,  without 
having  that  thorough  familiarity  with  the  originals,  which  may 
enable  you  to  apply  them  to  constant  and  daily  use  in  the 
practical  business  of  elevating  your  desires  and  affections,  of 
leading  you  to  walk  with  God,  and  really  to  take  his  word  as  a 
light  to  your  feet,  and  a  lamp  unto  your  path.  In  short,  your 
own  spiritual  nourishment — an  object  never  to  be  neglected — 
must  be  carried  on  through  the  instrumentality  of  your  mother 
tongue;  and  hence  the  necessity  of  a  thorough  familiarity  with  the 
English  Bible  is  indispensable  to  your  usefulness  in  the  work  of 
the  ministry.  It  is  the  English  Bible  that  you  are  to  explain 
from  the  pulpit ;  and  though  even  in  the  pulpit  it  may  sometimes 
be  necessary,  in  faithfully  discharging  your  duty  of  fully  and 
accurately  opening  up  the  mind  of  God  in  his  word,  to  advert  to 
the  original,  and  to  point  out  how  its  meaning  might  have  been 
given  more  clearly  or  more  correctly  than  in  our  version  ;  yet, 
practically  and  substantially,  it  is  the  English  Bible  alone  with 
which  the  generality  of  those  whom  you  are  called  upon  to 
instruct  will  ever  be  conversant.  It  is  with  that  same  Bible 
that  you  are  to  go  forth  amongst  them,  unfolding  its  truths, 
enforcing  its  precepts,  and  applying  its  warnings  and  consolations. 
In  short,  the  English  Bible  must  be  the  great  medium  of  your 
intercourse  with  them,  the  instrument  with  which  you  are  to 
operate  upon  them,  that  which  it  should  be  the  aim  of  your  life 
to  lead  them  through  God’s  blessing  to  understand  and  apply ; 
and  hence  the  necessity,  in  order  to  the  right  discharge  of  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  of  your  being  yourselves  thoroughly  familiar 


92 


SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


with  it,  with  all  its  contents,  and  with  its  whole  meaning  and 
applications.  You  are  to  exhort  them  to  study  it,  to  assist  them 
in  understanding  and  in  applying  it.  Whatever  about  the  Bible 
or  its  contents  they  may  not  know,  you  are  to  be  prepared  to 
make  known  to  them.  Whatever  doubts  or  difficulties  they  may 
have  about  anything  they  may  find  there,  you  will  be  expected  to 
explain  and  to  solve.  You  would  reckon  it  no  doubt  an  important 
result  of  your  labours  among  those  committed  to  your  care,  if 
you  succeeded  in  persuading  them  to  adopt  the  practice  of  daily 
perusing  and  carefully  studying  the  word  of  God,  with  a  sincere 
desire  to  know  its  meaning,  and  with  a  determination  to  use  all 
the  means  by  which,  through  God’s  blessing  they  might  rightly 
comprehend  and  apply  it ;  and  as  they  are  entitled  to  look  to  their 
pastor  for  all  necessary  assistance  and  explanation  in  this  work,  it 
is  indispensable  that  he  be  thoroughly  versant  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Bible,  and  of  everything  necessary  for  explaining  and  illus¬ 
trating  it.  There  are  many  things  which  men  are  bound  to  know, 
were  it  for  no  other  reason  than  because  it  is  usually  held  dis¬ 
creditable  for  any  man  of  liberal  education  to  be  ignorant  of  them. 
And  in  like  manner  it  would  be  discreditable  to  ministers  to  be 
ignorant  of  anything  about  the  Bible  in  common  use,  which  all 
men  ought  to  read,  about  which  all  ought  to  converse  and  inquire, 
and  about  which  ministers  are  expected  to  be  ever  ready  to  give 
information. 

There  prevails  even  among  ministers  far  too  much  ignorance  of 
the  Bible.  There  are  some  engaged  in  the  work  of  publicly 
instructing  men  in  religion,  to  whom  a  large  portion  of  the  word 
of  God  is  in  a  great  measure  a  terra  incognita.  We  do  not  refer 
at  present  to  their  ignorance  of  the  precise  meaning  of  many  of 
the  statements  of  Scripture — an  ignorance  arising  from  their 
having  done  little  in  the  way  of  searching  the  Scriptures,  or  care¬ 
fully  and  critically  investigating  their  import,  and  which  we  shall 
take  an  opportunity  afterwards  more  fully  to  expose.  We  fear 
there  is  a  great  ignorance  even  of  what  might  have  been  learned 
from  a  sufficiently  frequent  and  careful  perusal  of  the  Scriptures, 
without  any  very  exact  investigation  of  the  precise  meaning  of 
their  particular  statements — ignorance  of  the  contents  of  the  differ¬ 
ent  books  of  Scripture,  of  the  historical  events  there  recorded, 
and  of  the  biographies  of  the  different  persons  there  introduced. 


THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 


93 


Everything  that  can  be  learned  from  the  perusal  of  every  part  of  the 
Bible,  and  from  the  comparison  of  one  part  of  it  with  another, 
should  not  only  be  well  known,  but  should  be  deeply  impressed 
upon  the  mind  and  memory,  so  as  to  be  permanently  remembered 
and  ready  for  constant  use  and  application.  There  is  a  large 
amount  of  general  information,  collected  chiefly  from  the  Bible 
itself,  though  partly  also  from  other  sources,  about  the  authors  of 
the  different  books  of  Scripture,  the  time  and  place  where,  and 
the  objects  for  which  they  were  written,  the  history,  geography, 
chronology,  antiquities,  manners,  and  customs,  &c.,  Avith  which 
every  minister  ought  to  be  familiar,  and  of  which  it  is  highly 
discreditable  for  him  to  be  ignorant.  All  this  knowledge  is  very 
easily  acquired,  being  collected  and  arranged  in  many  easily 
accessible  books.  But  it  ought  to  be  acquired  and  impressed  upon 
the  memory,  were  it  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  is  discredit¬ 
able  to  be  ignorant  of  it.  But  Avhat  Ave  are  at  present  chiefly 
anxious  to  enforce  is  the  necessity  of  familiarity  with  the  contents 
of  the  Word  of  God  itself,  by  daily  perusal  and  study  of  it,  so  that 
you  may  become  scribes  well  instructed  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  ever  ready  to  bring  forth  out  of  the  treasures  of  the 
word  whatever  may  be  most  suitable  for  forming  men’s  opinions, 
for  impressing  their  hearts,  for  guiding  them  in  difficulties,  and 
comforting  them  in  trials.  All  ministers  ought  to  be  like  Apollos, 
mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  contents, 
deeply  imbued  with  the  Spirit,  and  intimately  conversant  Avith 
the  use  and  application  of  the  word  of  God,  and  these  qualifica¬ 
tions  can  be  secured  only  through  the  working  of  God’s  Spirit 
accompanying  the  daily  and  habitual,  the  careful  and  reverential 
perusal  of  them. 

This  daily  perusal  of  the  common  version  of  the  Bible  may  be 
conducted  in  different  Avays,  Avhich  have  their  respective  advan¬ 
tages.  It  is  useful  sometimes  to  read  over  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  word  of  God  without  stopping  to  investigate  carefully  the 
meaning  and  connection  of  particular  statements  and  clauses,  in 
order  to  have  a  general  view  of  the  contents,  leading  object  and 
main  scope  of  any  particular  portion  of  Scripture,  and  observations 
and  lessons  of  a  useful  and  important  kind  Avill  often  occur  in 
connection  with  such  a  process,  Avhich  might  not  have  been  otber- 
Avise  suggested.  This  therefore  is  a  process  Avhich  should  be 


94 


SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


occasionally  and  from  time  to  time  applied,  and  applied  repeatedly 
to  all  the  different  portions  of  the  Scriptures.  But  still  it  is 
practically  and  substantially  true  that  your  real  knowledge  of 
Scripture  will  be  very  much  in  proportion  to  the  degi'ee  of  time 
and  attention  which  you  devote  to  the  careful  and  accurate  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  meaning  and  connection  of  its  different  statements, 
comparing  them  with  each  other,  and  seeking  for  the  enlightening 
influences  of  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Most  of  you  probably  do  not 
yet  know  enough  of  Hebrew  to  read  with  any  use  or  profit  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  original,  or  to  give  more  time  and  attention 
to  this  than  the  prosecution  of  your  prescribed  studies  at  the 
Hebrew  class  may  require.  But  you  should  all  be  able  to  read 
the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  and  should  make  it  an  object  of 
primary  importance  to  acquire  day  after  day  greater  facility  in 
doing  so.  And  you  have  all  access  to  the  study  of  the  common 
version  of  the  Bible,  the  regular  daily  perusal  and  study  of  which, 
in  a  right  spirit,  and  accompanied  with  fervent  prayer,  will  almost 
insensibly,  and  to  your  own  surprise,  increase  your  knowledge  as 
well  as  deepen  your  impressions  of  divine  things,  and  contribute 
more  than  anything  else  to  furnish  you  with  materials  at  once  for 
promoting  your  own  growth  in  grace,  and  preparing  you  for 
becoming  useful  and  instructive  ministers  of  the  word.’ 

While  we  would  most  earnestly  inculcate  upon  you  the  most 
conscientious  diligence  and  the  most  unremitting  perseverance 
in  the  prosecution  of  your  studies,  on  the  ground  of  the  ex¬ 
tent  of  the  field  you  have  to  traverse,  we  would  at  the  same 
time  recommend  to  you  to  devote  to  your  professional  studies 
only  six  days  of  the  week,  and  to  devote  the  Lord’s  day  to 
exercises  bearing  upon  objects  common  to  you  with  ordinary 
private  Christians,  and  connected  with  your  own  personal  growth 
in  righteousness  and  holiness.  It  is  true  that  most  of  the  books 
which  you  may  be  called  upon  to  peruse,  and  of  the  subjects  to 
which  you  may  need  to  direct  your  attention  in  the  prosecution  of 
your  professional  studies,  may  be  such  as  might  lawfully  or  without 
sin  occupy  your  time  and  thoughts  on  the  Lord’s  day.  It  is  true 
also  that  part  of  your  professional  studies  consists,  as  we  have 

^  See  Dupin’s  Method,  p.  119.  1  recommend  as  most  useful,  and  indeed  indis¬ 

pensable,  Bagster’s  interleaved  editions  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals,  with 
English  version. 


TEE  SABBATH. 


95 


endeavoured  to  explain,  in  applying  divine  truth  to  the  promotion 
of  your  own  spiritual  nourishment ;  and  that  while  this  is  incum¬ 
bent  upon  all  Christians,  it  is  by  special  obligations  and  additional 
motives  incumbent  upon  students  of  theology.  It  may  also  be 
reasonably  expected,  considering  the  motives  by  which  you  profess 
to  be  animated,  and  the  objects  you  profess  to  aim  at,  that  the 
whole  prosecution  of  your  studies  shall  be  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of 
prayer,  by  a  sense  of  your  responsibility  to  and  dependence  upon 
God,  and  by  a  paramount  regard  to  his  glory.  But  while  all 
this  is  true,  and  should  not  be  forgotten  or  neglected,  it  is  also  true 
that  the  Lord’s  day  ought  to  be  devoted  more  immediately  and 
peculiarly  to  the  promotion  of  the  divine  life  in  your  souls.  Your 
professional  studies,  directed  to  the  attainment  of  theological 
knowledge,  ought  to  be  regarded  very  much  as  your  ordinary 
lawful  occupation,  to  be  diligently  prosecuted  in  the  fear  of  God 
during  the  six  days  on  which  we  are  authorised  to  labour  and  do 
all  our  work,  while  the  seventh  should  be  reserved  entirely  for 
Him,  who  on  that  day  rested  from  all  his  works,  and  should  be 
devoted  to  exercises  and  occupations  bearing  upon  the  proper 
relation  of  men  to  their  common  Creator  and  Redeemer,  and  the 
objects  which,  in  virtue  of  this  common  relation,  they  are  bound 
to  aim  at  and  to  secure.  Your  professional  studies  may  rightly 
occupy  the  principal  share  of  your  time  and  attention  for  six  days 
in  the  week,  just  like  the  ordinary  lawful  secular  business  of  other 
men  ;  but  on  the  Lord’s  day  you  ought  to  be  chiefly  influenced  by 
the  consideration,  not  so  much  that  you  are  students  of  theology 
preparing  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  that  you  may  be  made 
instrumental  in  promoting  the  salvation  of  others,  but  rather  that 
you  are,  in  common  with  many  of  the  poorest,  humblest,  and  most 
illiterate  of  the  human  race,  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  are  bound  to  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling,  and  to  become  progressively  more  meet  for  the  inherit¬ 
ance  of  the  saints  in  light.  One  temptation  to  which  you  are 
exposed,  and  against  which  you  are  called  upon  to  guard,  is  that 
of  studying  the  word  of  God  and  investigating  theological  subjects 
in  a  merely  professional  spirit,  as  if  it  were  a  merely  intellectual 
exercise,  as  if  your  only  object  was  to  increase  your  knowledge,  and 
thereby  to  prepare  for  a  creditable  examination  and  a  creditable 
discharge  of  the  ordinary  business  of  the  profession  you  have 


96 


SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


chosen.  There  is  a  danger  in  this  way  of  your  being  led  into  an 
irreverent  and  careless  way  of  thinking  and  speaking  of  divine 
things,  and  losing  sight  of  the  great  practical  purpose  for  which  all 
the  doctrines  of  God’s  word  were  revealed.  And  hence  the  import¬ 
ance  of  your  sometimes,  as  it  were,  throwing  off  your  merely  pro¬ 
fessional  character  as  students  of  theology,  and  directing  your 
attention  to  the  word  of  God  and  divine  things  simply  as  men 
who  are  bound  to  attend  to  their  own  personal  salvation,  to  their 
own  spiritual  nourishment ;  and  the  proper  time  for  securing  this 
object  by  these  means  is  peculiarly  the  Lord’s  Day. 

On  these  grounds,  derived  from  a  regard  to  your  own  duty  and 
welfare,  requiring  that  this  be  attempted  some  time,  and  from  the 
objects  and  end  of  the  Lord’s  Day,  plainly  requiring  that  it  be 
done  then,  you  should  feel  it  to  be  incumbent  upon  you  to  engage 
in  the  public  services  of  the  sanctuary,  not  as  critics  who  have  come 
to  learn  something  that  may  be  useful  in  your  profession,  but  as 
hearers  of  the  word,  who  are  anxious  to  have  divine  truth  more 
deeply  impressed  upon  your  own  hearts,  and  as  members  of  con¬ 
gregations  who  are  called  upon  to  unite  in  offering  up  supplica¬ 
tions  for  what  you  collectively  and  individually  need,  and  to 
devote  the  remainder  of  the  day  to  the  practical  and  devotional, 
rather  than  the  critical  reading  of  the  word  of  God,  to  self-exami¬ 
nation,  and  meditation  upon  unseen  and  eternal  realities,  and  to 
the  perusal  of  works  of  a  practical  and  devotional  character.  That 
you  may  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  the  Lord's  day  as  a  Sabbath,  a 
day  of  rest,  your  intellectual  powers  should  not  be  kept  at  their 
full  stretch,  or  occupied  with  intricate  and  perplexing  speculations. 
That  you  may  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  it  as  a  day  set  apart  for 
spiritual  ends,  you  must  spend  it  in  the  public  and  private  exer¬ 
cises  of  God’s  worship,  and  you  must  engage  in  these  exercises  with 
a  sincere  desire  to  get  from  them  those  spiritual  blessings  which  they 
are  intended  to  convey  to  all.  Thus,  and  thus  only,  will  you  spend 
the  Lord’s  Day  in  accordance  with  God’s  will,  and  in  the  w^ay  best 
fitted  to  promote  all  the  objects  you  ought  to  aim  at.  Thus  will  you 
secure  that  blessing  which  alone  maketh  rich  and  maketh  wise. 

It  has  been  usual  to  recommend  young  men  who  are  engaged 
in  the  study  of  theology  to  have  private  meetings  and  private 
intercourse  in  various  ways  among  themselves  for  mutual  assist¬ 
ance  and  encouragement;  and  such  meetings  and  such  inter- 


PRIVATE  MEETINGS. 


97 


course,  if  rightly  conducted,  may  undoubtedly  be  attended  with 
important  advantages.  I  trust  that  your  whole  intercourse  Avith 
each  other  will  be  regulated  by  a  due  sense  of  the  importance  and 
sacredness  of  the  studies  in  Avhich  you  are  now  engaged,  and  of 
the  office  to  which  you  aspire ;  and  that  your  time,  so  far  as  is 
consistent  with  a  due  regard  to  your  health,  will  be  honestly  and 
assiduously  devoted,  not  to  amusement  or  frivolity,  or  even  to 
the  more  rational  pleasure  of  social  intercourse,  but  to  your  own 
personal  spiritual  improvement,  and  to  the  promotion  of  your 
theological  knowledge  and  fitness  for  the  ministry  of  the  gospel. 
And  among  the  means  which  may  contribute  instrumentally  to 
the  promotion  of  these  objects,  one  is  private  meetings  among 
yourselves  for  prayer,  conference,  and  the  reading  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  The  arrangements  for  such  meetings  wdll  probably  be 
somewhat  regulated  by  your  personal  and  relative  circumstances, 
your  acquaintance  Avith  each  other,  and  similarity  of  tastes  and 
dispositions.  You  will  naturally  converse  with  each  other,  as  you 
have  time  and  opportunity,  upon  the  books  you  read,  the  lectures 
you  hear,  and  the  studies  in  which  you  are  engaged.  And  it  is 
right  and  proper  that  you  should  do  all  this  with  a  view  to  mutual 
improvement,  not  only  casually  as  occasion  may  offer,  but  regu¬ 
larly  and  statedly  uniting  together  in  small  circles  or  companies, 
as  friendship  or  acquaintance,  similarity  of  tastes  and  dispositions, 
or  opportunities  and  convenience  for  regularly  meeting  together, 
may  attract  and  combine  you.  The  safest,  most  profitable,  and 
in  every  way  the  best  exercise  for  meetings  of  a  small  number  of 
students  that  might  be  held  probably  (according  to  circumstances) 
once  a  week,  is  the  study  of  the  Avord  of  God  in  the  original,  or 
practically,  in  your  present  state  of  progress  and  proficiency,  the 
study  of  the  Greek  Testament,  accompanied  Avith  prayer.  Nothing 
affords  either  a  more  convenient,  or  more  suitable,  or  a  more  profit¬ 
able  exercise  for  such  meetings  than  this. 

When  engaged  in  the  study  of  the  Greek  Testament  you  are 
occupied  Avith  that  Avhich  is  at  once  the  best  means  of  increasing 
your  theological  knoAvledge  and  your  personal  spiritual  advance¬ 
ment.  And  it  is  therefore  of  the  last  importance  that  this  study 
should  be  prosecuted  until  you  thoroughly  understand  it,  and  can 
fully  apply  it.  A  brotherly  conference  upon  a  passage  of  Scrip- 

G 


98 


SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


ture  by  a  few  persons  who  have  previously  given  some  time  to 
meditation  upon  it,  is  well  fitted  to  afford  important  advantages 
for  understanding  its  meaning  and  application.  In  such  meetings 
it  would  be  desirable  that  a  passage  in  the  Greek  Testament 
should  be  selected  beforehand,  i.e.  at  the  previous  meeting,  on 
which  some  one  of  the  company  should  be  expected  to  prepare 
himself  for  explaining  and  opening  up,  both  in  the  way  of  unfold¬ 
ing  its  precise  and  exact  meaning,  and  pointing  out  the  practical 
application  that  ought  to  be  made  of  it ;  after  which  the  other 
members,  who  should  also  make  the  passage  a  subject  of  previous 
private  study  and  meditation,  should  all  deliver  their  sentiments,  and 
bring  in  their  contribution  of  anything  that  has  occurred  to  them, 
or  that  may  seem  fitted  to  bring  out  either  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  passage,  or  its  practical  spiritual  bearing  upon  character  and 
conduct.  Such  exercises  as  these,  if  conducted  in  a  right  spirit, 
are  fitted  to  contribute  greatly  to  increase  of  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  godly  edifying.  The  selection  of  a  passage  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  to  be  studied  and  meditated  on  privately, 
tends  to  secure  that  some  degree  of  attention  shall  regularly  be 
given  to  that  which  is  (except  prayer)  the  most  important  and 
profitable  of  all  exercises.  The  necessity  of  stating  at  the  weekly 
meetings,  though  briefly  and  simply,  what  may  have  recurred  on 
the  examination  of  the  passage,  will  assist  you  in  ascertaining 
whether  you  have  really  formed  any  clear  and  definite  conceptions 
about  it ;  for  men  cannot  be  very  sure  that  they  have  really  formed 
any  very  clear  and  definite  conceptions  until  they  have  attempted 
to  embody  them  in  words ;  while  the  observations  of  the  other 
members  of  the  company  upon  the  passage  and  upon  the  remarks 
that  may  have  been  made  upon  it,  pervaded  as  they  should  be  by 
a  spirit  of  profound  reverence  for  God's  word,  and  of  cordial  kind¬ 
ness  to  each  other,  may  often  be  useful  in  suggesting  hints,  admo¬ 
nitions,  and  cautions  as  to  the  oversights  or  errors  that  may  have 
been  committed.  Such  meetings  of  a  few  friends  regularly  and 
statedly  for  prayer  and  the  reading  and  exposition  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  are  fitted  to  produce  important  beneficial  results. 
They  should  consist  ordinarily  of  but  a  small  number  of  members — 
five  or  six  probably  are  enough — and  they  should  be  conducted  with 
privacy.’  These  meetings  should  not  only  be  opened  and  closed 
>  Instead  of  taking  detaclied  passages  of  the  Greek  Testament,  it  might  probably 


PRIVATE  MEETINGS. 


99 


with  prayer,  but  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of  prayer ;  and  they  should 
be  carefully  and  steadily  directed  to  the  object  of  promoting  the 
growth  in  knowledge  and  in  grace  of  the  members  who  compose 
them.  As  the  members  will,  of  course,  state  their  doubts  and 
difficulties  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  and  clauses  of  the 
passage,  and  as  to  the  justness  and  accuracy  of  any  of  the  observa¬ 
tions  that  may  have  been  made  upon  it,  and  as  these  will  thus 
become  the  subjects  of  brotherly  conference,  it  may  be  usually 
expected  that  before  the  meeting  terminates  all  the  members  will 
have  formed  clearer  and  more  accurate  conceptions  than  they  had 
before  of  the  meaning  and  import  of  the  particular  portion  of  God’s 
word  which  may  have  occupied  their  attention.  Those  of  you  who 
may  be  disposed  to  adopt  this  suggestion,  and  who  may  be  enabled 
to  follow  it  out  in  this  way  and  in  this  spirit,  will,  I  have  no  doubt, 
have  occasion  to  look  back  with  gratitude  to  God  upon  this  exer¬ 
cise,  as  not  the  least  useful  in  which  you  were  led  to  engage  in  the 
prosecution  of  your  studies. 

It  has  been  no  uncommon  thing  for  students,  while  engaged  in 
their  theological  studies,  to  give  some  portion  of  their  time  to 
exercises  that  may  be  considered  fitted,  in  some  measure,  to  pre¬ 
pare  them  for  pastoral  labour,  such  as  instructing  the  young  in 
Sabbath  schools,  visiting  the  sick,  or  visiting  among  the  poor  from 
house  to  house.  I  am  not  prepared  to  discourage  you  from  giving 
some  little  time  to  those  exercises,  and  specially  the  teaching  of  a 
Sabbath  school,  if  opportunity  and  inclination  should  lead  you  to 
it ;  but  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  am  I  prepared  to  recommend 
such  labours  and  exercises  specially  at  this  early  period  of  your 
studies.  Your  time  might  be  worse  spent  than  in  such  exercises  as 
these,  but  I  think  it  might  also  be  better  spent  for  the  present  in 
the  vigorous  and  energetic  prosecution  of  your  studies.  You 
should  spend  much  time  in  reading,  much  time  in  meditating  and 
reflecting  upon  what  you  read  and  hear,  much  time  in  the  study 
of  God’s  word,  and  in  all  those  pursuits  and  exercises  that  may 
contribute  to  enable  you  to  understand  it.  And  these  exercises, 
with  the  time  that  should  be  devoted  to  prayer  and  the  promotion 


be  desirable  to  take  some  one  of  the  shorter  and  easier  books,  and  go  over  it 
regularly.  You  would  thus  have  a  better  opportunity  of  directing  your  attention 
to  the  contents  and  scope  of  the  whole  passage,  which  is  often  of  primary  import- 
tance  in  understanding  and  applying  the  Scriptures. 


100 


SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


of  the  life  of  God  in  your  own  souls,  with  what  may  be  reasonably 
allowed  for  relaxation  and  social  intercourse,  will  probably  provide  for 
most  of  you  in  the  meantime  sufficient  occupation.  At  the  present 
period  of  your  studies,  the  business  of  your  different  classes,  the 
careful  study  and  thorough  investigation  of  the  subjects  which  are 
there  brought  before  you,  must  constitute  your  chief  occupation,  to 
which  everything  else  must  be  subordinate.  This  is  present  duty. 
This  is  peculiarly  the  work  to  which  God  is  at  present  calling  you, 
and  to  which  therefore  your  time  and  energies  should  be  cheer¬ 
fully  devoted.  There  is  in  the  present  condition  of  the  church  to 
which  you  have  attached  yourselves  a  loud  call  for  strenuous  and 
active  exertion,  for  much  work  among  our  countrymen  in  promot¬ 
ing  their  spiritual  welfare ;  but  tliat  is  only  an  additional  reason 
why,  while  you  are  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  your  studies, 
you  should  labour  in  the  acquisition  of  theological  knowledge,  and 
a  thorough  acquaintance  with  God’s  Word,  with  unwearied  diligence 
and  activity,  and  improve  to  the  utmost  your  present  opportuni¬ 
ties,  in  order  that  when  you  are  called  to  engage  in  pastoral  labours, 
and  when  you  may  have  comparatively  little  leisure  for  study,  you 
may  still  be  able  to  approve  yourselves  as  workmen  that  need  not 
to  be  ashamed. 


LECTURE  VIII. 


METHOD  OF  THE  COUESE. 


WE  are  now  prepared  to  proceed  to  give  some  explanation  of 
the  way  in  which  the  subjects  that  are  to  occupy  our 
attention  during  this  session  are  to  be  taken  up  and  laid  out,  and 
of  the  way  in  which  the  business  of  the  class  is  to  be  conducted. 
The  main  subjects  to  which  your  attention  is  to  be  directed,  are 
the  evidences  of  Christianity ;  the  divine  origin,  inspiration,  and 
the  canonical  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  the  rule  of 
faith,  as  including  the  topics  of  the  perspicuity,  sufficiency,  and 
perfection  of  the  written  word  of  God  as  the  only  standard  of 
faith  and  practice — a  subject  of  peculiar  importance  in  the  present 
day,  when  all  the  errors  on  this  topic,  in  opposition  to  which  the 
Reformers  had  to  contend  against  the  Church  of  Rome,  have  been 
revived  by  many  who  have  not  openly  joined  the  Papal  apostacy; 
and  last,  though  not  least,  the  general  principles  of  Hermeneutics, 
or  of  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  especially  of 
the  New  Testament.  When  you  reflect  on  the  extent  and  magni¬ 
tude  of  these  subjects,  you  must  see  at  once  that  it  is  a  very  brief 
and  meagre  outline  of  them  that  can  be  brought  under  your  notice 
in  the  public  business  of  the  class,  and  that  your  progress  in  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  them  must  depend  mainly,  under  God, 
upon  the  zeal  and  assiduity  with  which  you  prosecute  your  own 
private  studies.  So  extensive  are  the  subjects,  and  so  much  has 
been  written  upon  all  of  them  by  men  of  distinguished  talent  and 
learning,  that  if  we  were  to  attempt  to  act  upon  the  principle  of 
laying  before  you  all  the  useful  information  that  might  easily  be 
collected,  any  one  of  the  subjects  that  have  been  mentioned  might 
occupy  us  for  a  whole  session.  Take,  for  instance,  the  subject  of 
the  evidences  of  Christianity.  So  much  has  been  written  upon 


102 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


this  subject,  and  so  full  are  the  materials  which  have  been  pro¬ 
vided  upon  all  the  various  branches  of  the  proof,  that  there  would 
be  no  great  difficulty,  if  it  were  worth  while,  to  put  together 
lectures  which  would  occupy  the  whole  of  the  time  during  which 
we  may  be  together  in  this  class.  But  this  would  be  a  great 
waste  of  your  time,  because  it  would  be  devoting  a  disproportionate 
share  of  attention  to  that  subject,  and  because  any  topic  that  could 
be  introduced  might  be  found  discussed  in  the  fullest  and  most 
satisfactory  manner  in  the  innumerable  works  upon  this  subject, 
some  of  which  you  ought  to  read.  The  same  general  considera¬ 
tions  apply  to  every  department  of  theological  science.  It  is  true 
of  them  all,  that  so  much  has  been  written  upon  them,  that,  in  the 
first  place,  only  a  very  meagre  outline  of  the  subjects  can  be  given 
in  public  prelections,  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  substance 
of  all  that  can  be  said  about  them  may  be  found  in  works  to  which 
your  attention  may  be  directed.  On  these  grounds,  it  is  my  inten¬ 
tion  to  aim  rather  at  the  training  of  theological  students  than  the 
mere  discussion  of  theological  subjects  ;  rather  to  aim  at  explain¬ 
ing  the  general  nature  and  position  of  the  different  topics  which 
may  come  before  us  ;  to  point  out  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
they  ought  to  be  viewed  and  studied ;  the  books  you  ought  to 
peruse,  and  the  use  you  ought  to  make  of  them  ;  rather  than  to 
attempt  to  give  formal  discussions  upon  the  various  subjects. 
With  the  leading  subjects  that  enter  into  the  course,  it  is  my  duty 
to  endeavour  to  secure  that  you  all  acquire  a  respectable  measure 
of  acquaintance,  to  give  you  such  assistance  by  lectures,  explana¬ 
tions,  and  examinations,  as  may  seem  fitted  to  afford  facilities  for 
your  acquiring  the  necessary  information  and  satisfying  your  judg¬ 
ments.  It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  and  labour  to  be  writing  out 
and  delivering  to  you  lectures  upon  topics  which  had  been  dis¬ 
cussed  and  exhausted  in  works  that  might  be  recommended  to 
your  perusal,  and  might  be  quite  accessible  to  you,  when,  as  must 
often  be  the  case,  nothing  had  occurred  to  me  that  seemed  fitted 
to  improve  the  way  in  which  the  truth,  and  the  grounds  on  which 
it  rested,  could  be  explained  and  illustrated,  and  when  the  discus¬ 
sions  respecting  the  particular  topics  had  not  assumed  any  new 
form  or  aspect  since  the  time  when  works  in  which  it  was  fully 
and  satisfactorily  disposed  of  had  issued  from  the  press.  Our 
business  here  should  be  one  of  teaching  and  training,  and  not  seek- 


METHOD  OF  THE  COURSE. 


103 


ing  to  interest  and  attract  by  mere  speculation  and  discussion. 
The  great  direct  object  to  be  aimed  at — that  to  which  every 
other  is  subordinate — is  to  secure  as  far  as  possible  that  every  one 
of  you  shall,  in  the  course  of  your  theological  studies,  acquire  that 
measure  of  theological  knowledge  and  other  qualifications,  that 
may  be  considered  indispensable  for  your  becoming  useful  and 
respectable  ministers  of  the  gospel;  and  this  necessarily  implies  that 
we  proceed  in  a  beaten  track,  and  do  not  wholly  omit  anything  that 
is  really  useful  and  necessary,  however  ordinary  or  commonplace. 
It  would  be  an  important  and  desirable  result  of  our  labours  and 
studies  in  this  place,  if  you  were  all  inspired  with  such  a  love  for 
the  study  of  theology,  as  that  you  might  continue  to  prosecute  this 
study,  more  or  less,  all  your  lives,  and  that  thus  those  of  you  whom 
God  has  gifted  with  superior  powers,  and  whom  in  his  providence 
he  ma}^  furnish  with  suitable  opportunities,  might  become  dis¬ 
tinguished  theologians.  But  this  is  an  object  which,  except  in  so 
far  as  concerns  our  seeking  to  inspire  you  with  a  love  for  the  study 
of  theology,  cannot  be  directly  and  distinctly  aimed  at.  What  is 
at  once  practicable  and  imperative  is  to  secure  that  you  all  acquire 
such  a  measure  of  theological  knowledge  as  the  church  is  entitled 
to  expect,  and  bound  to  exact,  before  admitting  you  to  the  office  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel.  This  may,  through  the  divine  blessing, 
be  attained,  and  it  is  my  duty  to  make  the  attainment  of  it  my 
principal  object — one  to  which  everything  else  should  be  subordin¬ 
ated.  While  all  of  you  ought  to  aim  at  this,  and  to  reach  it,  none 
of  you,  even  those  of  you  who  have  the  greatest  capacity,  zeal,  and 
diligence,  can  go  very  greatly  beyond  it  during  the  period  of  your 
theological  studies  ;  and  hence  it  is  the  duty  of  all  of  you,  in  place 
of  indulging  in  any  predilection  you  may  form  for  any  particular 
department  of  theological  study,  and  following  it  out  exclusively, 
to  give  your  time  and  attention  to  the  ordinary  business  of  your 
different  classes,  to  read  and  meditate  or  reflect  upon  the  subjects 
which  are  there  brought  under  your  notice.  The  principal  objects 
to  which  public  prelections  on  such  subjects  should  be  directed  are 
to  awaken  your  interest  in  the  different  topics  by  pointing  out  their 
nature,  relations,  and  importance,  explaining  and  removing  diffi¬ 
culties,  directing  to  sources  of  fuller  information,  and  bringing  out 
by  examination  at  once  your  knowledge  and  your  ignorance,  and 
thus  leading  to  a  more  strenuous  exertion  of  your  faculties,  and 


104 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


of  course  to  your  forming  clearer  and  more  definite  ideas  of  the 
various  subjects  that  may  be  brought  before  you.  To  excite  your 
interest,  to  stir  up  your  faculties,  to  direct  you  in  your  investiga¬ 
tions,  to  point  out  to  you  the  errors  and  dangers  into  which  you 
are  most  apt  to  fall,  and  the  obstacles  that  might  obstruct  your 
progress, —these  should  be  the  chief  objects  of  a  teacher  of  theology. 
Your  real  and  direct  knowledge  of  theology  must  come  principally 
from  your  own  reading  and  reflection,  and  the  operation  of  God’s 
Spirit.  And  in  regard,  more  particularly,  to  the  study  of  the  word 
of  God,  the  basis  of  all  sound  theological  knowledge,  no  exposition 
of  its  statements  that  might  be  given  in  this  place,  and  no  mere 
reading  of  commentaries,  however  full  and  extensive,  will  be  of 
any  very  material  benefit  to  you  without  the  full,  careful,  and 
deliberate  application  of  your  own  powers  and  faculties  in  secret, 
and  under  the  guidance  of  him  who  seeth  in  secret,  to  the  investi¬ 
gation  of  its  meaning.  Unless  you  read  much,  think  much,  and 
pray  much,  you  will  gain  little  by  your  mere  attendance  in  this 
place,  or  by  anything  that  can  be  done  in  public  prelections  ;  and 
one  main  object,  therefore,  should  be  to  lead  you  to  abound  in 
these  exercises,  and  to  assist  and  encourage  you  to  persevere  in 
them.  In  regard  to  prayer,  we  trust  we  need  say  nothing  more 
than  we  have  already  set  before  you ;  and  with  respect  to  reading 
and  meditation,  the  objects  to  be  aimed  at  will  be  best  promoted 
by  intermingling  regular  lectures  on  important  subjects,  especially 
in  explaining  their  general  nature,  position,  and  relations  to  each 
other,  with  examinations  upon  topics  or  books  prescribed,  and 
occassional  explanations,  such  as  the  examinations  and  the  subjects 
of  them  may  suggest. 

The  first  subject  usually  brought  under  the  notice  of  those  who 
are  commencing  their  theological  studies  is  what  is  commonly 
called  Natural  Theology,  or  the  information  that  may  be  obtained 
concerning  God  from  the  natural  exercise  of  our  own  powers  upon 
ourselves  and  upon  the  objects  around  us,  including  an  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  process  by  which  this  information  is  acquired,  and  the 
purposes  which  it  is  fitted  to  serve.  We  do  not  mean  to  dwell 
upon  the  exposition  of  this  subject — first,  because  our  proper  sub¬ 
ject  is  Christian  theology — i.e.  the  opening  up  of  the  character 
and  the  meaning  of  the  Word  of  God — and  because  on  this  subject 
there  are  sufficient  materials  for  occupying  your  time  and  atten- 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


105 


tion  more  usefully  and  more  profitably;  and,  second,  because  we 
could  add  nothing  of  any  value  to  what  is  contained  in  Dr 
Chalmers’  two  volumes  on  Natural  Theology,  which  contain  what 
is  in  many  respects  by  much  the  most  valuable  and  satisfactory 
discussion  of  the  subject  to  be  found  in  our  language,  and  which 
you  ouglit  all,  if  possible,  to  read  without  delay,  if  you  are  not 
•already  familiar  with  them.  We  shall  confine  the  little  we  say 
upon  this  subject  to  such  observations  as  may  assist  you  in  under¬ 
standing  the  general  place  which  natural  theology  has  usually 
occupied  in  theological  science  and  literature,  and  its  bearing 
upon  the  evidences  of  Christianity. 

The  question  is  this,  Can  men,  by  the  exercise  of  their  natural 
faculties  upon  themselves,  and  upon  other  objects  around  them, 
ascertain  and  prove  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  First  Cause  of 
all  things  ;  and  if  so,  what  is  the  amount  of  the  information  which 
in  this  way  may  be  acquired  concerning  him  ?  Now,  it  has  been 
shewn  in  innumerable  works,  and  by  unanswerable  arguments, 
that  men,  in  Ihe  fair  exercise  of  their  faculties,  looking  within 
upon  themselves,  and  without  upon  the  world  around  them,  are 
reasonably  and  necessarily  led  to  believe  that  there  exists  an 
invisible  intelligent  Being,  to  whom  they  themselves,  and  all  other 
objects  of  their  contemplation,  owe  their  existence  ;  that  this  great 
Being  must  rule  and  govern  everything  according  to  the  counsel 
of  his  own  will ;  that  he  is  possessed  of  the  highest  moral  excel¬ 
lence,  and  ought  therefore  to  be  worshipped  and  obeyed.  This 
can  be  proved  by  processes  of  argument,  which  assume  nothing 
except  the  existence  of  those  objects  of  which  our  senses  and  our 
consciousness  take  cognizance,  and  give  us  information.  The  argu¬ 
ments  by  which  all  this  has  been  established  have  been  assailed 
by  atheists,  pantheists,  and  sceptics,  but  their  sophisms  have  been 
all  answered  and  exposed  ;  and  the  matter  just  stands  thus,  that 
if  truth  be  discoverable  by  the  human  faculties,  this  is  true,  and 
that,  even  without  any  abstract  deliverance  as  to  the  capacity  of 
the  human  faculties  to  discover  truth,  men  cannot  in  point  of  fact 
fairly  and  honestly  use  their  faculties  without  being  led  to  such 
conclusions  as  these. 

There  is,  however,  a  distinction  of  some  importance  to  be 
attended  to  between  the  truth  of  these  doctrines  concerning  God, 
as  propositions  which  can  be  maintained  and  defended  unanswer- 


106 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


ably  by  reasoning  against  all  who  may  deny  or  dispute  them,  and 
the  ability  of  men,  without  revelation,  and  in  the  mere  use  of  their 
natural  faculties,  to  have  found  them  out.  That  men  could  have 
discovered  them  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  fact  that 
they  can  now  prove  them,  and  we  have  no  opportunity  of  appeal¬ 
ing  to  historical  facts  to  settle  this  question  ;  for  if  God  has  ever 
given  supernatural  revelations  of  himself  to  men,  he  has  given 
them  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  so  that  even  men  who  had  not 
any  written  revelation  of  God’s  will,  may  have  had  the  benefit  of 
traditionary  remnants  of  a  primary  revelation.  But  this  question 
is  rather  curious  than  important.  The  only  thing  practically 
important,  so  far  as  natural  theology  is  concerned,  is  that  we  be 
able  to  prove  from  reason  against  any  man  who  may  dispute  it, 
that  there  is  an  intelligent  First  Cause,  who  has  created  and 
governs  all  things.  It  is  indeed  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  nations 
which  have  not  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  a  written  revelation  have 
usually  had  a  very  imperfect  acquaintance  with  God,  with  his 
character  and  government,  and  with  the  duty  and  obedience 
which  he  requires ;  and  even  to  deists — at  least  to  those  of  them 
who  profess  to  be  really  concerned  about  the  grounds  of  natural 
religion — it  ought  to  be  a  strong  presumption  in  favour  of  the 
truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  that  for  many  ages  the  Jews, 
who  professed  to  have  a  divine  revelation,  w'ere  the  only  nation  in 
the  world  who  generally  believed  in  the  unity  of  God,  or  had  any 
worthy  conceptions  of  his  character  and  government;  and  that 
wherever  the  Christian  revelation  has  been  diffused,  there  much 
more  correct  views  of  everything  about  God  have  prevailed  than 
have  ever  obtained  where  that  revelation  was  unknown.  Voltaire 
and  others,  English  infidels,  alleged  that  the  Jews  worshipped 
a  hog  And  all  this  affords  a  strong  evidence  of  the 

desirableness  and  necessitv  of  a  revelation,  while  at  the  same 
time,  along  with  other  circumstances  that  might  be  mentioned, 
it  affords  a  strong  presumption  that  much  of  the  knowledge  of 
God,  such  as  it  was,  that  obtained  among  heathen  nations,  was 
derived  not  from  reasoning,  but  from  tradition. 

In  the  views  given  us  in  Scripture  concerning  the  divine 
character  and  government,  there  is  nothing  contrary  to  what 
enlightened  reason  teaches  or  confirms  upon  the  same  subject. 
But  much  fuller  information  is  there  given  us  concerning  God, 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


107 


and  especially  concerning  his  plans  aod  purposes  with  respect  to 
the  human  race,  and  the  way  in  which  he  ought  to  be  worshipped 
and  served,  than  could  in  any  other  way  have  been  attained. 
While  atheists,  pantheists,  and  the  more  reckless  sceptics  deny 
that  any  certain  proof  can  be  deduced  from  the  light  of  nature 
and  the  exercise  of  reason  for  the  existence,  character,  and  moral 
government  of  God,  deists  have  usually  gone  into  the  opposite 
extreme,  and  have  maintained  the  perfect  sufficiency  of  the  light 
of  nature  or  of  human  reason,  to  guide  men  to  a  full  knowledge 
of  God,  and  of  the  worship  and  obedience  which  they  ought  to 
render  to  him,  so  as  to  enjoy  his  favour  and  attain  to  happiness. 
It  is  indeed  true  that  very  many  of  those  who,  while  professing 
deism,  have  denied  the  truth  of  Christianity,  have  given  suffi¬ 
ciently  plain  indications  that  they  are  not  very  cordial  in  supporting 
the  doctrines  of  the  providence  and  moral  government  of  God 
and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  ;  still  there  have 
been  some — as,  for  example,  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  the 
father  of  the  English  deists,  and  the  most  respectable  among  them — 
who  really  seemed  anxious  to  establish  the  leading  doctrines  of 
natural  religion,  while  they  rejected  revelation,  and  maintained 
that  natural  religion  was  sufficient  to  guide  men  to  the  knowledge 
of  God,  to  duty,  and  to  happiness.  Hence  the  question  of  the 
sufficiency  of  reason  or  natural  religion  to  guide  men  to  the 
knowledge  of  God’s  will,  and  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour,  has 
entered  pretty  largely  into  the  controversy  about  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  the  defenders  of  Christianity  maintaining  the  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  reason  and  the  necessity  of  revelation.  This  controversy 
is  not  one  of  very  great  importance,  in  so  far  as  its  bearing  upon 
the  proper  direct  evidence  of  Christianity  is  concerned.  And  in 
that  aspect  of  it,  it  is,  I  think,  sufficiently  and  very  sagaciously 
disposed  of  in  the  first  sentence  of  Paley’s  Evidences,  in  these 
words :  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  prove  that  mankind  stood  in 
need  of  a  revelation,  because  I  have  met  with  no  serious  person 
who  thinks  that  even  under  the  Christian  revelation  we  have  too 
much  light,  or  any  degree  of  assurance  that  is  superfluous.”  But 
the  controversy  has  led  to  much  able  and  interesting  discussion 
concerning  the  grounds  and  evidences  of  natural  religion,  the 
capacities  and  the  wants  of  man,  the  origin  of  the  world,  and  the 
general  state  of  religion  and  morality  among  heathen  nations  ; 


108 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


and  much  that  has  been  written  upon  it  affords  an  excellent 
commentary  upon  the  statements  both  of  doctrine  and  fact 
contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Eomans. 
We  have  not  very  many  better  books  than  Halyburton’s  Natural 
Religion  insufficient,  and  Revealed  necessary  to  man's  happiness 
in  his  present  state,  in  answer  to  Lord  Herbert.  And  when  the 
sufficiency  of  reason  or  natural  religion  was  again  maintained  in 
Tindal’s  work,  entitled  Christianity  as  old  as  the  Creation ;  or, 
The  Gospel  a  Repuhlication  of  the  Religion  of  Nature,  some 
very  able  men  came  forward  to  maintain  the  insufficiency  of 
reason  or  natural  religion,  and  to  defend  the  necessity  of  revela¬ 
tion  and  the  claims  of  Christianity,  especially  Conybeare  and 
Law  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  Leland  and  Foster  among 
Dissenters  ;  though  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  one  of 
them  went  as  deep  into  the  real  merits  of  the  question  as 
Halyburton  had  done.  [Whitby,  Leland,  and  Tholuck,^  on  the 
state  of  the  heathen  world,  as  shewing  the  necessity  of  revelation.] 

It  may  be  fairly  enough  presumed  that  the  measure  of 
knowledge  of  God  and  duty  and  a  future  state  actually  reached 
by  the  most  distinguished  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome — 
men  who  in  point  of  natural  talents  have  never  been  surpassed, 
and  who  devoted  their  powers  to  the  investigation  of  these 
subjects — indicates  what  the  unassisted  reason  of  man  could 
attain  to  in  theology ;  and  that  the  much  fuller,  more  complete, 
and  better-established  systems  of  natural  religion  which  have 
been  put  forth  in  modern  times,  and  where  Christianity  was 
known,  mark  the  distinction  between  what  men  by  their  reason 
could  have  discovered  or  found  out,  and  what  they  can  prove  to 
be  true,  when  the  ideas  have  been  suggested  to  them  from  some 
other  source.  Certain  it  is  that  the  fullest  system  of  natural 
religion,  and  the  most  conclusive  proofs  from  reason  of  the  truth 
of  the  doctrines  which  constitute  it,  are  to  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  men  who  were  believers  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
revelation.  They  may  be  found  in  the  collection  of  the  Boyle 
Lectures  and  others  published  in  England  in  the  early  part  of 
last  century,  although  it  ought  to  be  mentioned  that  that  was 
not  the  period  in  the  history  of  our  theological  literature  when 

'  Tholuck  on  “The  Nature  and  Moral  Influence  of  Heathenism,”  Biblical 
Cabinet,  No.  28. 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


109 


our  most  eminent  theological  writers,  generally  speaking,  enter¬ 
tained  the  soundest  views  in  regard  to  Christian  theology,  i.e.  the 
contents  of  the  Scriptures,  or  the  systems  of  doctrine  revealed  to 
us  in  the  Word  of  God. 

The  question  whether  the  leading  doctrines  commonly  believed 
among  us  concerning  the  existence,  character,  and  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  God,  and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  as 
the  basis  of  the  worship  and  obedience  to  be  rendered  to  him,  can 
be  established  by  reason,  has  been  discussed  not  only  between 
Christians  and  atheists  or  sceptics,  but  has  also  formed  a  subject 
of  controversy  among  professed  believers  in  revelation.  The  great 
body  of  believers  in  revelation  have  held  that  the  leading  doc¬ 
trines  of  natural  religion  can  be  established  by  reason,  and 
they  have  held  this  general  proposition  upon  two  distinct 
grounds — one  common  to  them  with  those  deists  who  have 
not  sunk  into  atheism  or  scepticism,  and  the  other  derived  from 
the  information  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  They  have 
held  this  conviction — first,  because  they  can  point  to  the 
proofs  which  have  been  adduced  in  support  of  the  doctrines  of 
natural  religion,  proofs  which  are  in  entire  accordance  with  the 
strictest  principles  of  sound  logic,  and  which  all  the  efforts  of 
atheists  and  sceptics  have  not  been  able  successfully  to  assail;  and 
second,  because  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  they  believe  to  contain 
an  authentic  revelation  of  God’s  will,  sanction  the  idea  that  men, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  are  able  to  attain  to  such  a 
knowledge  of  God  as  to  make  them  responsible  for  not  worshipping 
and  serving  him  aright.  The  question,  as  discussed  among  pro¬ 
fessed  believers  in  revelation,  is  thus  stated  by  Turretine  in  his 
Theologia  Elenctica  (loc.  i.  ques.  iii.)  —  a  work  of  inestimable 
value,  which  I  hope  all  of  you  will  master  before  you  complete 
your  theological  studies,  and  the  two  first  loci  of  which  contain 
much  important  matters  on  most  of  the  topics  comprehended  in 
our  course  for  this  session — first  more  generally  in  this  way,  “An 
detur  theologia  naturalis?”  and  then  more  particularly,  “An  detur 
in  homine  tabs  facultas  naturalis  ipsi  insita  qujB  se  ultro  et  sponte 
exerat  in  omnibus  adultis  Sana  mente  praeditis,  quae  complec- 
tatur  non  modo  potentiam  intelligendi,  sed  etiam  principia 
naturalia  notitiarum  ex  quibus  conclusiones  turn  theoreticae  turn 
practicae  deducuntur?  quod  asserimus.”  In  order  to  define  more 


110 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


precisely  the  extent  to  which  he  maintained  that  there  was  a 
natural  theology,  or  that  men  could  by  reason  attain  to  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  God,  he  adds — “  Non  quseritur  an  cognitio  ista  sit  perfecta 
et  salutaris  ?  Fatemur  enim  post  peccatum  valde  obscuratum 
esse,  ut  ad  salutem  penitus  insufficiens  facta  sit,  sed  tantum  an 
aliqualis  supersit  in  homine  de  Deo  cognitio,  per  quam  persua- 
deatur  Deum  esse,  et  esse  religiose  colendum.”  And  it  is  a  curious 
circumstance,  and  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  inconsistencies  and 
vagaries  of  the  human  mind,  that  among  the  professed  believers  in 
revelation  some  leading  Socinians,^  who  commonly  err  in  the  oppo¬ 
site  extreme  of  ascribing  too  much  to  human  reason,  have  been 
almost  the  only  persons  who  have  denied  that  men  by  the  exercise 
of  their  faculties  could  attain  to  some  knowledge  of  the  existence 
and  character  of  God,  and  of  the  duty  he  requires.  The  explana¬ 
tion  of  this  curious  anomaly  of  the  adoption  of  such  a  view  by  some 
leading  Socinians  is,  however,  obvious  enough.  By  denying  the 
]3riestly  ofBce  of  Christ — in  other  words,  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  gospel — they  are  much  at  a  loss  for  any  adequate  explanation 
of  the  reasons  or  causes  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
revelation  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  under  a  consciousness 
of  this  sort  have  endeavoured  to  magnify  Christ’s  prophetical  office, 
by  representing  him  as  making  known  through  the  Scriptures 
information  which  has  been  generally  supposed  to  be  in  some 
measure  revealed  by  reason,  but  which  they  ascribed  exclusively 
to  Christianity  and  the  Scriptures,  as  if  to  compensate  for  the 
grievous  injury  they  did  them  in  other  respects,  or  as  if  to  satisfy 
themselves  that  though  there  was  no  need  of  any  such  thing  as  an 
atonement  for  sin,  there  was  yet  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  mission 
of  Christ  in  making  known  to  men  the  existence  of  God,  and  the 
way  in  which  he  ought  to  be  worshipped  and  served. 

That  the  mission  of  Christ  and  the  revelation  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  have  rendered  most  important  services  to'  natural 
religion,  or  to  the  doctrines  usually  comprehended  under  that 
designation,  by  the  additional  clearness  and  certainty  with  which 
its  doctrines  are  now  in  consequence  taught  and  established,  is 
certain.  But  this  was  only  a  subordinate  object  of  Christ’s  mission 
and  of  the  revelation  contained  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  men  are  not 

’  Socinians,  however,  have  differed  among  themselves  on  this  point.  Stapfer, 
Theol.  Polemica,  vol.  hi.  p.  412. 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


Ill 


so  entirely  dependent  upon  this  revelation,  as  some  Socinians  have 
supposed,  for  all  certain  knowledge  of  the  existence  and  character 
of  God.  And  accordingly,  as  Turretine  tells  us,  orthodox  divines 
have  constantly  maintained,  and  have  proved  both  from  reason 
and  Scripture,  “  theologiam  naturalem  dari,  partim  insitam,  quge 
ex  libro  conscientise  hauritur  per  /^o/^ag  Iwoiag,  partim  acquisitam, 
qu0e  ex  libro  creaturarum  petitur  per  discursum  ”  (loc.  i.  ques.  iii. 
voL  i.  p.  7).  And  in  the  first  chapter  of  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
to  which  I  would  direct  your  special  attention,  as  it  contains  an 
admirable  statement  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  principal  truths 
which  during  a  considerable  part  of  the  course  it  will  be  my  chief 
duty  to  explain  and  illustrate,  the  doctrine  is  set  forth  in  these 
words : — ''  Although  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power 
of  God  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable,  yet  they  are  not  sufficient  to 
give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary 
unto  salvation."’  There  are  here,  you  will  observe,  two  positions 
set  forth — first,  that,  according  to  the  language  of  Turretine, 
there  is  a  natural  theology,  or  that  men,  by  the  exercise  of  their 
faculties,  can  attain  to  a  knowledge  not  only  of  the  existence  of 
God,  but  in  some  measure  of  his  character — such  a  knowledge  of 
him  as  to  leave  them  inexcusable ;  and  second,  that  they  cannot 
in  this  way,  or  without  a  revelation,  attain  to  such  a  knowledge  of 
God  as  is  necessary  to  salvation,  or  ultimate  and  permanent 
happiness.  The  Confession,  which  professes  to  exhibit  only  a 
summary  of  what  is  taught  in  Scripture,  appeals  to  the  word  of 
God  in  support  of  both  of  these  positions ;  and  it  is  certainly  not 
difficult  to  establish  them  from  Scripture  against  all  who  might 
deny  them,  and  who  yet  admitted  its  authority.  If  called  upon 
to  discuss  these  positions  with  men  who  do  not  admit  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  Scripture,  we  must  prove  them  from  the  principles  of 
reason,  which  they  admit.  The  proof  of  the  first  of  them,  or  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  natural  capacity  of  knowing  God  as  to 
render  men  inexcusable,  must  be  derived,  as  we  have  already 
remarked,  just  from  a  statement  of  the  evidences  of  the  existence 
and  character  of  God,  and  of  the  ground  thus  laid  for  the  obliga¬ 
tion  to  worship  and  serve  him,  and  from  a  conclusive  exposure  of 
the  objections  that  may  be  adduced  against  the  validity  of  this 
evidence.  When  we  can  point  to  such  a  body  of  proof  derived 


112 


EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


from  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and  providence, 
and  when  we  have  answered  any  objections  that  may  be  adduced 
against  its  validity,  we  are  then  entitled  to  assert  that  we  have 
proved  from  reason  that  there  is  a  natural  theology,  and  that  con¬ 
sequently  even  men  who  have  not  had  the  benefit  of  a  revelation 
are  without  excuse  if  they  have  not  been  worshipping  and  serving 
God.  And  the  proof  of  this  same  position  from  Scripture  is  to 
be  found  in  those  numerous  portions  of  it  which  represent  God’s 
works  of  creation  and  providence  as  fitted  to  lead,  and  as  actually 
leading,  men  to  recognise  his  existence,  to  adore  his  perfections,  to 
cherish  devotional  feelings  towards  him,  and  to  submit  implicitly 
to  his  authority.  It  has  been  justly  remarked  that  the  book  of 
Job  may  be  said  to  be  devoted  to  the  object  of  illustrating  this; 
and  many  similar  statements  occur  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  the 
other  devotional  portions  of  the  Scriptures.  This  truth,  however, 
is  taught  us  in  Scripture,  not  only  inferentially  and  by  plain  con¬ 
sequence,  but  in  distinct  and  explicit  doctrinal  statements,  as  in 
Paul’s  address  to  the  people  of  Lycaonia,  recorded  in  Acts  xiv. 
15-17,  and  in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  These  statements  are  too  clear  to  admit  of  any  serious 
doubt  as  to  their  meaning,  and  should  settle  the  point  with  all 
who  admit  the  authority  of  Scripture.  “  And  saying,  Sirs,  why  do 
ye  these  things?  We  also  are  men  of  like  passions  with  you, 
and  preach  unto  you,  that  ye  should  turn  from  these  vanities  unto 
the  living  God,  which  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  things  that  are  therein :  who  in  times  past  suffered  all  nations 
to  walk  in  their  own  ways.  Nevertheless  he  left  not  himself 
without  witness,  in  that  he  did  good,  and  gave  us  rain  from  heaven, 
and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  our  hearts  with  food  and  gladness” 
'  (Acts  xiv.  15-17). 

The  apostle’s  statement  plainly  implies  that  though  the  Lycaon- 
ians  and  other  nations  similarly  situated,  were  not  so  guilty  as  if 
they  had  enjoyed  some  better  opportunities  of  knowing  the  true 
God — as,  for  example,  a  direct  supernatural  revelation  ;  yet,  from 
the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  the  abundant  mercies  they 
had  enjoyed,  they  might  and  should  have  been  led  to  know  the 
only  true  God,  who  had  made  heaven  and  earth,  to  worship  him 
and  him  only,  and  to  abandon  the  practice  of  idolatry.  And  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


113 


we  have  the  same  truth  still  more  fully  and  formally  stated  and 
proved.  The  substance  of  what  the  apostle  there  declares  in  regard 
to  the  heathen  nations  in  general  was  this — First,  that  they  were 
generally  immersed  in  the  grossest  and  most  deplorable  idolatry 
and  immorality ;  second,  that  they  were  responsible  for  all  this 
idolatry  and  immorality,  and  justly  punishable  on  account  of  their 
conduct ;  and  third,  that  the  grounds  of  the  responsibility  and 
just  liability  to  punishment  on  account  of  their  idolatry  and 
immorality,  or,  as  he  says,  of  their  being  inexcusable,  was  that 
from  the  things  that  were  made  (the  works  of  creation),  they  might 
have  known,  and  in  a  certain  sense  did  know,  enough  of  God’s 
character  and  will  to  have  convinced  them  that  this  idolatry  and 
immorality  were  sinful  and  dangerous,  and  to  have  led  them  to 
worship  God  and  to  obey  his  laws.  “  Because  that  which  may  be 
known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them  :  for  God  hath  shewed  it  unto 
them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  ;  so  that  they  are  with¬ 
out  excuse.  Because  that,  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified 
him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful ;  but  became  vain  in  their 
imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened  ”  (Rom.  i.  19-21). 
And  in  the  second  chapter  the  apostle  shews  that  a  similar  argu¬ 
ment  might  be  founded  on  the  moral  constitution  of  men,  on  the 
conscience  which  they  all  have  within  their  hearts,  and  the  pos¬ 
session  of  which  ought  to  have  led  them  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
character  of  God  and  their  own  duty,  and  rendered  inexcusable 
the  actual  ignorance  they  manifested,  and  the  sins  of  which  they 
were  guilty. 


H 


LECTURE  IX. 


INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATUKAL  THEOLOGY. 

AS  to  the  second  proposition,  which  sets  forth  the  insufficiency 
of  the  light  of  nature,  or  of  human  reason,  or  of  natural  theo¬ 
logy,  which  is  the  product  of  the  light  of  nature  or  human  reason, 
this  can  be  very  easily  established  by  the  statements  of  Scripture 
to  those  who  acknowledge  its  authority.  It  is  curious,  however,  to 
notice  here  the  inconsistency  of  the  Socinians,  for  while  many  of 
them  have  contended  that  men  could  not  by  their  own  reason 
establish  the  leading  doctrines  of  natural  theology,  but  must  be 
indebted  for  the  knowledge  of  them  to  Christ  and  the  Scriptures, 
and  while  they  have  plainly  been  led  to  take  this  ground,  because, 
according  to  their  views,  there  was  little  else  for  which  men  were 
indebted  to  the  Son  of  God  and  his  Word,  they  are  willing  enough 
generally  to  allow  that  these  doctrines  of  natural  theology,  or  those 
general  truths  about  God  which  have  been  commonly  regarded  as 
knowable  by  human  reason,  are  sufficient  for  leading  men  to 
happiness  and  salvation.’  These  doctrines  indeed,  they  think, 
cannot  be  known  fully  and  certainly  without  Christ  and  revelation  ; 
but  then  Christ  and  revelation  have  done  little  or  nothing  for  us 
except  fully  and  clearly  to  reveal  to  us  these  doctrines.  It  was 
not,  according  to  them,  deficiency  of  the  knowledge  as  to  its  extent 
and  compass,  but  the  mere  difficulty  of  making  it  known  to  us, 
that  rendered  a  revelation  necessary ;  while  most  divines,  though 
maintaining  in  opposition  to  the  Socinians  that  the  goodness, 
wisdom,  and  power  of  God  are,  to  some  extent,  manifested  by  the 
light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  have 
also  held  that  there  are  truths  the  knowledofe  of  which  is  neces- 

‘  See  on  the  immediately  following  Question  of  Turretine,  Ques.  iv. 


IKSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


115 


.  saiy  to  salvation,  but  which  cannot  be  known  by  the  unassisted 
reason  of  man,  and  can  be  learned  only  from  revelation. 

That  a  knowledge  of  the  peculiar  principles  of  Christianity  as  a 
remedial  scheme,  originating  in  God’s  love  to  men,  and  founded  on 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  his  Son  as  the  substitute  of  sinners, 
is  necessary  to  men’s  salvation,  or  to  their  attaining  to  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  God’s  favour  and  to  permanent  happiness,  can  be  very 
easily  established  from  the  statements  of  Scripture  ;  but  if  this 
subject  is  to  be  discussed  with  unbelievers,  it  must  be  discussed 
upon  the  principles  of  reason,  and  we  must  try  to  prove  by  argu¬ 
ments  derived  from  that  source  that  the  light  of  nature,  and  the 
works  of  creation  and  providence,  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation.” 
Now,  in  adverting  to  this  point,  we  must  remind  you  that,  as  we 
have  already  remarked,  the  proof  of  this  is  not  necessary  as  a  pre¬ 
liminary  to  establishing  the  truth  of  Christianity.  We  can  prove 
the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  authority  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  without  either  assuming  or  establishing  the  insufficiency 
of  reason  or  the  necessity  of  revelation ;  and  therefore,  in  arguing 
with  infidels,  we  might  supersede  the  discussion  of  this  point,  and 
proceed  at  once  to  establish  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation, 
and  the  consequent  obligation  to  receive  implicitly  the  whole  of 
its  information.  But  it  is  usually  right,  when  an  infidel  allegation 
or  objection  can  be  answered  directly,  that  it  should'  be  answered 
directly.  The  insufficiency  of  reason  and  the  necessity  of  revela¬ 
tion  can  be,  and  have  been,  proved  from  principles  of  reason ;  and 
the  process  of  proving  this  leads  to  some  interesting  and  useful 
speculations.  The  direct  and  proper  proof  from  reason  of  the 
insufficiency  of  reason  and  the  necessity  of  revelation,  lies  mainly 
in  the  establishment  of  these  two  positions — First,  it  can  be  proved 
from  the  light  of  nature  and  the  testimony  of  conscience,  that  all 
men  have  sinned  or  broken  God’s  laws ;  second,  it  can  not  be 
proved  from  reason  or  the  light  of  nature  that  men  who  have 
sinned  against  God’s  laws  will,  even  upon  repentance  and  amend¬ 
ment,  escape  punishment  for  their  sins.  Lord  Herbert  summed 
up  natural  religion,  which  he  thought  sufficient  to  guide  men  to 
permanent  happiness,  in  five  articles,  viz. — First,  that  there  is  one 
supreme  God ;  second,  that  he  is  to  be  worshipped ;  third,  that 
piety  and  virtue  are  the  principal  parts  of  his  worship ;  fourth. 


116 


NINTH  LECTURE. 


that  when  we  have  done  amiss,  we  must  repent,  and  are  then  fully 
warranted  to  cherish  the  hope  of  pardon  ;  and  fifth,  that  there  are 
rewards  and  punishments  for  good  and  bad  men  respectively  in  a 
future  life. 

Now,  even  if  it  were  admitted  that  the  light  of  nature  could 
discover  and  establish  clearly  and  certainly,  so  as  practically  to 
influence  men's  character  and  conduct,  that  there  is  one  supreme 
God,  who  is  to  be  worshipped,  and  worshipped  principally  by  the 
practice  of  piety  and  virtue,  and  that  there  is  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  although  the  general  state  of  religion  and 
morality  among  nations  who  have  not  had  the  benefit  of  a  divine 
revelation  is  very  far  from  demanding  or  sanctioning  so  full  an 
admission,  still  an  insuperable  difficulty  would  attach  to  Herbert’s 
fourth  principle,  viz.  that  men  who  have  sinned  are  entitled  upon 
repentance  to  cherish  the  certain  hope  of  pardon.  Not  that  we 
would  assert  and  undertake  to  prove  'positively  upon  prmcipZes 
of  reason,  that  God  could  not,  in  point  of  fact,  pardon  the  sins  of 
penitent  sinners,  or  deny  that  the  light  of  nature  affords  any 
grounds  for  believing  that  God  is  placable  and  ready  to  forgive. 
But  it  has  been  often  proved  by  the  defenders  of  revelation — and 
this  is  sufficient — that  it  is  impossible  to  reach  by  the  light  of 
nature,  without  revelation,  to  a  certain  and  assured  conviction 
that  God  will  pardon  sin  ;  that  there  is  much  in  the  state  of  the 
world,  in  the  natural  conscience  of  men,  and  in  the  moral 
government  which  God  is  actually  exercising,  to  lead  men  who 
have  not  a  positive  revelation  to  entertain  very  serious  appre¬ 
hensions  upon  this  subject;  and  that,  even  though  we  might 
have  good  reason  from  the  light  of  nature  for  believing  the 
general  position  that  God  is  merciful  and  placable,  we  could  not 
certainly  deduce  from  this  general  doctrine  any  firm  and  well- 
established  conclusions  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  he 
would  in  point  of  fact  deal  with  sinners,  on  what  terms  and 
conditions,  with  what  accompaniments  and  in  what  circumstances 
he  would,  if  at  all,  dispense  pardon.  If  it  can  be  proved,  as  has 
been  often  done  conclusively,  that  the  light  of  nature  teaches 
men  that  they  have  sinned  against  God’s  laws,  but  that  it  does 
not  certainly  and  distinctly  inform  them  in  such  a  way  as  to 
carry  assurance  to  their  minds  that  they  will  be  pardoned  upon 
repentance,  or  tell  them  authoritatively  in  what  way  or  upon 


INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


117 


what  terms  pardon  is  to  be  obtained,  then  it  follows  plainly  that 
the  light  of  nature  is  insufficient  to  afford  men  rational  peace 
and  satisfaction,  to  allay  their  doubts  and  fears,  or  to  provide  for 
them  any  ground  on  which  they  can  securely  rest  in  looking 
forward  to  a  reckoning  with  God,  and  an  entrance  upon  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  This  is  enough  to  prove  that 
no  man  ought  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  light  of  nature,  with  the 
informations  of  reason  or  of  natural  theology,  and,  as  if  he  had 
already  attained  to  full  certainty  and  assurance  in  regard  to  his 
relation  to  God  and  his  eternal  destiny,  refuse  to  listen  to  any 
intimation  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  and  to  examine  the 
credentials  which  it  produces.  There  is  much  in  the  condition  of 
the  world  and  in  the  constitution  of  man,  especially  in  the 
supremacy  of  conscience,  to  prove  that  God  exercises  a  moral 
government  over  us,  i.e.  that  he  himself  loves  righteousness  and 
hates  iniquity,  and  treats  men  according  to  their  character  and 
conduct ;  while  at  the  same  time  there  is  so  much  of  what  may 
seem  irregularity  and  imperfection  in  the  actual  administration 
of  this  moral  government,  as  to  force  upon  us  the  conviction  that 
it  is  only  a  part  of  a  great  scheme  that  we  at  present  behold,  and 
that  this  scheme  is  to  be  more  fully  carried  out  in  some  different 
and  subsequent  state  of  existence.  But  while  we  can  thus  derive 
from  the  light  of  nature  some  general  notions  of  the  divine 
character  and  government,  we  can  derive  from  it  no  very  certain 
conclusions  as  to  what  God  will  actually  do  in  certain  cases,  real 
or  supposed.  We  see  about  as  much  evidence  of  God’s  hatred  of 
sin  as  of  his  love  of  virtue,  of  his  holiness  and  justice  as  of  his 
benevolence  and  mercy ;  and  we  are  therefore  at  a  loss  when  by 
the  mere  light  of  nature  we  endeavour  to  decide  how  he  will  in 
point  of  fact  ultimately  and  permanently  deal  with  those  who 
have  been  guilty  of  transgression  of  his  laws.  There  is  much 
that  clearly  leads  us  to  entertain  the  conviction  and  apprehension 
that  sin  must  and  shall  bring  down  punishment,  and  even  if  there 
were  sufficiently  clear  grounds  in  the  light  of  nature  for  warranting 
the  general  conclusion  that  God  is  placable  (which,  perhaps, 
cannot  be  very  certainly  established),  yet  this  general  truth  of 
God’s  placability  would  not  afford  any  very  clear  or  certain 
grounds  for  the  conclusion  that  he  will  in  point  of  fact  pardon 
sinners  upon  their  repenting,  or  upon  any  other  specific  terms  or 


118 


NINTH  LECTURE. 


conditions  which  we  might  devise  or  imagine.  The  general 
consideration  of  the  necessary  imperfection  of  our  natural 
knowledge  of  God  should  come  in  with  peculiar  force,  and  prevent 
our  adopting  any  very  definite  conclusions  with  certainty,  when, 
from  the  mere  possession  of  a  general  character  or  quality  which 
we  think  ourselves  warranted  in  ascribing  to  him,  we  are  disposed 
to  draw  inferences  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  he  will 
act  in  certain  circumstances ;  and  in  a  matter  which  is  at  once  so 
unspeakably  important  in  itself,  in  its  bearing  upon  our  destiny 
and  happiness,  and  at  the  same  time  so  thickly  shrouded  in 
obscurity  and  uncertainty,  in  so  far  as  the  light  of  nature  and 
the  information  of  reason  are  concerned,  as  the  actual  forgiveness 
of  sin,  the  ultimate  fate  of  sinners,  and  the  way  and  manner,  if 
any,  of  escaping  from  the  consequences  of  transgression,  we  should 
in  right  reason  rest  satisfied  with  nothing  until  we  have  carefully 
considered  and  fully  ascertained  whether  or  not  God  has  himself 
been  pleased  to  give  us  any  specific  information  upon  this  infinitely 
important  subject;  and  we  should  be  ready  and  willing  to  give  a 
fair  and  candid  hearing,  and  a  patient  and  careful  consideration,  to 
any  feasible  claims  that  may  be  put  forth  on  behalf  of  a  professed 
revelation  from  God. 

Even  among  the  defenders  of  revelation  there  has  been  some 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  amount  of  the  evidence  from  the 
light  of  nature  for  God’s  placability,  or  the  strength  of  the 
probability  from  reason  that  he  will  pardon  sin.  And  it  ,is 
evidently,  from  its  very  nature,  one  of  those  points  on  which 
men’s  general  tendencies  and  inclinations  might  probably  exert  a 
considerable  influence  upon  their  opinions — the  grounds  of  either 
an  affirmative  or  a  negative  opinion  concerning  it  being  somewhat 
vague  and  indefinite.  But  the  absence  of  clear  and  definite 
grounds  to  prove  positively  that  God  is  ready  and  willing  to 
forgive  sin,  is  sufficient  to  shew  that  men  cannot  rest  upon  this 
with  anything  like  security.  And  then  placability,  or  a  readiness 
to  forgive,  as  a  general  feature  of  the  divine  character,  is  not 
enough  to  be  a  ground  of  hope  and  confidence,  unless  men  had  in 
addition  some  definite  materials  for  ascertaining,  first,  that  pardon 
would  actually  and  in  point  of  fact  be  dispensed  ;  and  second,  in 
what  way,  or  upon  what  terms  or  conditions,  it  was  to  be 
obtained. 


INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


119 


Baxter,  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  first  part  of  his  Reasons  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  has  a  chapter  entitled  “  What  natural 
light  declareth  of  the  mercy  of  God  to  sinners,  and  of  the  hopes 
and  means  of  man’s  recovery;”  and  in  this  chapter  he  has  some 
speculations,  in  which  he  raises  pretty  high  the  evidence  from 
reason  of  God’s  pardoning  sinners.  Halyburton,  in  a  very  valuable 
chapter  in  his  work  on  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion  (the 
tenth),  which  contains  a  very  full  and  able  discussion  of  this 
whole  subject,  has  some  animadversions  upon  these  statements  of 
Baxter’s,  in  which  he  shews,  I  think,  that  Baxter’s  reasons  from 
the  light  of  nature  for  expecting  or  believing  that  sinners  will  be 
pardoned,  are  not  by  any  means  so  clear  and  certain  as  he  repre¬ 
sents  them.  But  Baxter  did  not  think  that  the  light  of  nature 
could  give  any  assurance  of  pardon,  or  that  men  had  any  ground 
to  believe  that  they  would  be  pardoned  on  mere  repentance. 
Accordingly,  his  very  next  chapter  after  that  on  which  Halyburton 
animadverts,  being  the  first  of  the  second  part  of  the  work 
referred  to,  is  to  shew  “  the  great  need  of  a  clearer  light  or  fuller 
revelation  of  God’s  will,  than  all  that  hath  been  assumed  before,” 
and  that  chapter  contains  the  following  statements  ; — 

“  I  am  not  satisfied,  by  the  light  of  nature,  how  God  is  so  far  reconciled, 
and  the  ends  of  government  and  justice  attained,  as  to  deal  with  the  world 
so  contrary  to  its  deserts.  And  while  I  am  in  this  doubt  of  God’s  reconcilia¬ 
tion,  I  am  still  ready  to  fear,  lest  present  forbearance  and  mercy  be  but  a 
reprieve,  and  will  end  at  last  in  greater  misery  ;  however,  I  find  it  hard,  if 
not  impossible,  to  come  to  any  certainty  of  actual  pardon  and  salvation.  Nor 
can  I  see,  by  nature,  how  a  sinner  can  live  comfortably  in  this  world,  for 
want  of  clearer  assurance  of  his  future  happiness.  I  must  therefore  conclude 
that  the  light  and  law  of  nature,  which  was  suitable  to  uncorrupted  reason 
and  will,  and  to  an  undepraved  mind,  is  too  insufficient  to  the  corrupted, 
vitiated,  guilty  world,  and  that  there  is  a  necessity  of  some  recovering, 
medicinal  revelation.”  ’ 

And  in  his  More  Reasons  for  the  Christian  Religion  he  has 
formally  argued,  in  opposition  to  Herbert,  the  utter  want  of  any 
evidence  from  the  light  of  nature  that  God  will  pardon  sinners 
upon  repentance,  or  that  sinners,  on  the  ground  of  their  repent¬ 
ance,  are  warranted  to  expect  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  just  as  Haly¬ 
burton  and  many  others  have  done. 

^  Baxter’s  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion,  part  ii.  chap,  i.,  secs.  13-20. 
Works,  vol.  xxi.,  pp.  132-138. 


120 


NINTH  LECTURE. 


It  is  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  very  defect  under  which 
natural  religion  specially  labours  is  just  that  which  it  was  profes¬ 
sedly  the  leading  object  of  the  Christian  revelation  to  supply. 
If  natural  religion,  whatever  measure  of  light  it  may  be  fitted  to 
cast  upon  the  character  and  moral  government  of  God  and  a 
future  state,  plainly  teaches  men  that  they  are  sinners,  or  trans¬ 
gressors  of  God’s  laws,  but  does  not  plainly  teach  that  God  will 
forgive  sin,  or  distinctly  point  out  in  what  way,  or  upon  what 
terms,  forgiveness  is  to  be  secured  ;  then  men  who  have  only  the 
light  of  nature  to  guide  them,  even  though  they  are  making  the 
best  use  of  it,  and  indeed  we  might  say  just  because  they  are 
making  the  best  and  fullest  use  of  it,  must  be  in  a  state  of  fearful 
anxiety  and  alarm  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  sins 
they  have  committed  are  to  tell  upon  their  ultimate  destiny.  Now, 
in  this  state  the  Christian  revelation  presents  itself  to  their 
notice,  and  challenges  their  investigation.  And  in  doing  so  it 
holds  out,  as  one  of  its  leading  recommendations,  that  it  professes 
to  give  a  full  solution  of  these  important  and  perplexing  questions 
which  natural  religion  could  not  solve.  It  confirms  indeed  all  the 
fears  and  apprehensions  of  nature  as  to  the  intrinsic  difficulties 
connected  with  the  subject  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  the  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  repentance ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  fully  reveals  the 
mercy  of  God,  assures  us  of  his  readiness  to  pardon,  and  of  his 
desire  to  save  men,  and  unfolds  to  us  a  great  scheme  through 
which  God  has  provided  for  securing  this  object,  in  full  consistency 
with  all  the  attributes  of  his  nature  and  all  the  principles  of  his 
moral  government,  and  gives  us  full  and  explicit  instructions  as  to 
what  we  must  do  in  order  that  we  may  escape  the  wrath  and  curse 
of  God  due  to  us  for  our  sins,  and  attain  to  the  enjoyment  of  his 
favour  and  eternal  happiness.  Christianity  has  been  sometimes 
called  by  infidels  a  mere  republication  of  the  law  of  nature,  and 
some  of  those  who  have  assumed  the  designation  of  rational 
divines  have  been  able  to  see  little  more  in  it  than  this,  and  have 
been  willing  to  rest  its  claims  upon  the  additional  clearness  and 
certainty  which  it  gives  to  the  doctrines  of  natural  religion.  But 
this  is  a  very  inadequate  view  of  Christianity,  even  when  viewed 
simply  as  a  revelation.  It  is  very  manifest,  even  upon  the  face  of 
it,  that  its  leading  peculiarity  is,  that  it  unfolds  a  remedial 
scheme,  that  it  is  adapted  and  addressed  to  man  as  a  sinner — to 


INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


121 


man  viewed  not  merely  as  a  creature  of  God’s  hand,  and  a  subject 
of  his  government,  but  as  a  transgressor  of  his  law  ;  and  that  its 
most  peculiar  and  transcendent  value  lies  in  its  making  known  to 
us  from  God  himself,  and  upon  his  own  authority,  his  merciful 
and  gracious  purposes  in  regard  to  sinful  men  ;  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  provision  he  has  made  for  pardoning  them,  and 
the  way  and  manner  in  which  men  individually  are  to  obtain 
forgiveness.  Every  man  who  had  made  a  right  and  ful]  use  of  the 
light  of  nature,  so  as  to  be  alive  to  its  defects,  and  desirous  of 
further  information  on  these  momentous  questions  on  which  it 
leaves  men  so  much  in  the  dark,  would  regard  this  feature,  which 
stands  out  so  legibly  stamped  upon  the  Christian  revelation,  as 
affording,  if  not  a  positive  presumption  of  its  truth,  at  least  a  loud 
call  to  inquire  seriously  into  its  origin,  evidences,  and  authority, 
and  would  be  determined  by  it  to  prosecute  the  inquiry  with  all 
earnestness  and  impartiality,  until  firmly  and  distinctly  persuaded 
either  that  Christianity  is,  as  it  professes  to  be,  a  revelation  from 
God  to  men  on  matters  essentially  involving  their  destiny  and 
happiness,  or  else  a  cunningly  devised  fable.^ 

The  proper  ground  or  basis  of  natural  theology  is  just  the  works 
of  creation  and  providence;  the  works  of  creation,  including  not 
only  inanimate  objects,  whether  great  or  small,  distant  or  at  hand, 
but  also  man  himself,  in  his  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  con¬ 
stitution  ;  and  works  of  providence,  including  not  only  the  changes 
or  events  connected  with  these  various  and  innumerable  objects 
which  we  ourselves  have  seen  or  observed,  but  those  also  which 
have  been  made  known  to  us  on  the  testimony  of  others.  The 
evidence  of  sense,  the  evidence  of  consciousness,  and  the  evidence 
of  testimony,  are  recognised  by  all  sane  men  as  valid  and  certain 
sources  of  knowledge,  as  conveying  to  us  information  which  it  is 
our  duty  to  receive  and  to  rest  upon.  The  reason  or  understand¬ 
ing  of  man,  brought  to  bear  upon  those  various  objects  and  facts 
comprehended  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  is  led,  in 
its  fair  and  honest  exercise,  to  the  conviction  of  the  existence  of 
an  intelligent  First  Cause,  who  has  created  ail  these  objects,  and 
who  directs  and  superintends  all  these  events,  who  is  possessed  of 
the  highest  moral  excellence,  and  who  is  to  be  worshipped  and 
obeyed.  The  truths  thus  discovered  and  established  constitute 
1  See  last  chapter  of  Dr  Chalmers’s  Natural  Theology. 


122 


NINTH  LECTURE. 


what  is  commonly  called  natural  theology,  and  the  truths  that 
are  thus  known,  or  that  may  be  known,  concerning  God,  are  quite 
sufficient  at  least  to  render  inexcusable  those  who,  without  any 
other  opportunities  of  knowing  him,  do  not  worship  and  serve  the 
true  God  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  though  they  are  not  suffi- 
'  cient  to  guide  men  to  salvation. 

Some  have  thought  that  evidence  for  the  existence  and  govern¬ 
ment  of  God  might  be  derived  not  only  from  the  ordinary  events 
that  are  constantly  occurring  in  accordance  with  what  seem  to  be 
the  usual  principles  or  laws  that  regulate  the  succession  of  events 
in  the  physical  and  moral  worlds,  but  also  from  extraordinary  or 
miraculous  occurrences  alleged  to  have  taken  place,  when  such 
events  have  been  either  observed  by  the  senses,  or  established  by 
other  satisfactory  evidence.  It  has  been  alleged  that  men  have 
foretold  that  certain  events  would  take  place  which  could  not 
have  been  foreseen  by  any  human  sagacity,  and  that  these  events 
so  foretold  have  taken  place  in  accordance  wdth  the  prediction, 
although  those  who  foretold  them,  and  those  in  whom  they  were 
fulfilled,  neither  did  nor  could  exert  any  influence  adequate  to 
produce  them.  It  has  also  been  alleged  that  events  have  some¬ 
times  taken  place  manifestly  implying  a  deviation  from  the  ordi¬ 
nary  course  of  nature,  and  from  the  usual  operation  of  those  laws 
by  which  the  ordinaiy  course  of  nature  seems  to  be  regulated — 
events  which  the  power  of  man  could  not  have  effected,  but  which 
yet  were  effected  by  men,  or  at  least  in  obvious  and  designed  con¬ 
nection  with  something  said  or  done  by  men.  Admitting  that 
such  things  as  these — prophecies  and  miracles — have  been  seen 
or  observed  by  men,  or  are  believed  by  them  on  the  ground  of 
satisfactory  testimony,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  they 
afford  good  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  there  does  exist  some 
superior  invisible  power  which  has  access  to  the  minds  of  men, 
and  which  can  exert  some  influence  above  and  beyond  what  man 
could  exert  upon  the  objects  we  behold  and  the  events  we  observe. 
Such  events  as  these  speak  more  plainly  and  explicitly  of  a  supe¬ 
rior  invisible  power  than  ordinary  events  do,  but  they  do  not  of 
themselves,  and  in  virtue  of  anything  peculiar  to  them  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  other  events,  tell  us  anything  of  the  moral  character 
of  the  power  by  which  they  are  produced  ;  nor  do  they  of  them¬ 
selves,  and  in  virtue  of  anything  peculiar  to  them,  lead  to  the 


INSUFFICIENCY  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY, 


123 


knowledge  of  one  great  intelligent  Being,  who  is  the  Creator  and 
Governor  of  all.  Bight  conceptions  of  God,  as  an  intelligent 
Being  who  has  created  and  governs  all  things,  who  is  possessed  of 
exalted  and  unbounded  knowledge,  power,  and  wisdom,  can  be 
legitimately  derived  only  from  a  survey  of  the  world  in  its  ampli¬ 
tude  and  variety ;  and  right  conceptions  of  the  moral  character 
and  moral  s^overnment  of  this  one  intellment  First  Cause  can  be 
certainly  deduced  only  from  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  general 
tendencies  of  things,  and  especially  from  an  examination  of  our 
own  mental  constitution.  And  when  right  conceptions  of  the 
existence,  character,  and  moral  government  of  God  have  been  thus 
formed,  they  may  be  applied  to  particular  objects,  facts,  or  events, 
ordinary  or  extraordinary,  so  as  to  enable  us  to  deduce  from  these 
particular  facts  or  events  special  inferences  which  may  be  of  the 
highest  importance.  In  short,  prophecies  and  miracles,  when 
viewed  in  connection  with  the  great  doctrines  of  natural  religion 
already  established,  or  with  a  belief,  resting  on  solid  rational 
grounds,  of  the  existence,  character,  and  providence  of  a  great 
First  Cause,  afford  good  grounds  for  inferences  and  conclusions 
which  they  could  not  fully  and  validly  support  when  viewed  simply 
as  separate  facts  or  events,  or  when  contemplated  by  men  who 
are  not  yet  persuaded  of  the  existence  of  a  God  of  infinite  excel¬ 
lence  ruling  and  governing  all  things.  This  topic  is  intimately 
connected  with  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  the  illustration 
of  the  proof  of  its  truth  from  miracles  and  prophecy,  and  will 
be  more  fully  adverted  to  when  we  come  to  that  branch  of  the 
subject. 


LECTURE  X. 


NATUEAL  THEOLOGY,  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF 

CHEISTIANITY. 


IT  may  be  proper,  however,  at  present  to  advert  generally  to  the 
connection  between  the  doctrines  of  natural  theology  and  the 
processes  by  which  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  may  be 
established.  There  are  two  questions  here  that  ought  to  be 
distinguished.  The  first  concerns  the  relation  between  the 
doctrines  of  natural  theology  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
revelation ;  and  the  other  concerns  the  relation  between  the 
doctrines  of  natural  theology  and  the  evidences  of  the  Christian 
revelation.  The  latter  of  these  subjects,  though  more  minute  and 
limited  in  extent  than  the  other,  is  really  and  practically  much 
the  more  important  of  the  two,  and  for  this  plain  reason,  that 
when  once  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation  is  fully  established, 
we  can  easily  derive  from  it  much  fuller  and  more  certain  infor¬ 
mation  in  regard  to  the  character  and  moral  government  of  God,  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  the  whole  subject  of 
the  duty  and  destiny  of  man,  than  we  could  possibly  derive  from 
the  exercise  of  our  faculties  on  the  works  of  creation  and  provi¬ 
dence.  And  hence  the  paramount  importance  of  our  being  chiefly 
solicitous  about  investigating  fully,  and  establishing  thoroughly, 
the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  the  propriety  of  our  giving  our 
chief  attention  in  examining  the  subject  of  natural  theology,  to  the 
bearing  of  its  information  upon  the  evidence  or  proof,  rather  than 
upon  the  matter  or  contents,  of  revelation.  There  are  no  doctrines 
concerning  God  and  our  relation  to  him  for  which  satisfactory 
evidence  has  been  adduced  from  an  examination  of  the  works  of 
creation  and  providence,  which  are  not  also  assumed  or  asserted 
in  the  Christian  revelation.  In  the  very  commencement  of  the 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  125 


Bible  the  existence  of  God  is  assumed  or  taken  for  granted,  while 
his  creation  of  the  world  is  explicitly  declared.  The  Bible  gives 
much  additional  information  concerning  God  beyond  what  the 
light  of  nature  affords,  especially  concerning  his  plans  and  purposes 
Avith  respect  to  the  human  race,  the  worship  and  duty  which  men 
are  called  upon  to  render  to  him,  and  the  paths  through  which 
they  may  attain  to  permanent  felicity.  If  Christianity  be  true, 
then  Ave  have  in  the  Bible  all  the  information  which  the  light  of 
nature  has  ever  been  supposed  to  afford  to  us,  much  more  clearly 
and  more  fully  developed  ;  and  we  have  an  authoritative  solution 
of  the  great  question  Avhich  it  so  much  concerns  us  to  understand 
and  apply,  viz..  How,  or  in  what  way,  man  may  escape  from  the 
consequences  of  his  sin,  and  may  attain  to  forgiveness  and  the 
favour  of  God  ?  When  our  object  is  to  unfold  fully  and  syste¬ 
matically  all  that  Ave  know  concerning  God  and  his  character  and 
moral  government,  we  can  derive  no  great  assistance  from  the 
discovery  of  human  reason  ;  for  if  the  Scripture  be  a  divine 
revelation,  it  contains  information  which  is  at  least  as  authentic, 
and  much  more  full  and  complete,  than  even  the  clearest  deduc¬ 
tions  of  reason  could  furnish.  In  forming  our  full  and  final 
judgment  as  to  the  truths  we  ought  to  believe  concerning  the 
character  and  moral  government  of  God,  we  are  not  dependent  in 
the  least,  if  Christianity  be  true,  upon  natural  religion.  But  it  is 
an  important  inquiry.  Are  we  equally  independent  of  the  infor¬ 
mations  of  natural  theology,  in  investigating  the  previous  question 
Avhether  we  are  Avarranted  to  receive  Christianity  as  a  divine 
revelation,  and  to  rely  implicitly  upon  what  the  sacred  Scriptures 
make  knoAvn  to  us  ?  The  language  in  Avhich  the  questions  that 
have  been  agitated  about  the  authenticity  of  particular  revelations 
are  usually  stated,  seems  to  indicate  that,  according  to  general 
apprehension,  the  evidence  by  which  alleged  supernatural  revela¬ 
tions  should  be  established  must  be  founded  upon  natural  religion. 
The  questions  commonly  put  upon  this  subject  are  such  as  these : 
Did  this  revelation  proceed  from  God  ?  Does  the  information 
thus  conveyed  to  us  rest  upon  God’s  anthority  ? — questions  which 
plainly  enough  seem  to  imply  that  Ave  already  know  something 
about  God,  and  that  Ave  have  some  means  of  tracing  a  connection 
between  him  and  information  that  may  be  communicated  to  us 
through  the  instrumentality  of  men.  The  claims  which  Moses 


126 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


and  whicli  Christ  himself  put  forth  was  in  substance,  that  they 
were  commissioned  by  God,  and  that  they  spoke  in  his  name  and 
by  his  authority,  and  they  could  and  did  expect  their  claims  to  be 
believed  only  when  they  produced  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this 
position.  This  position,  however,  is  practically  unintelligible  to  a 
man  who  has  no  idea  of  God,  and  no  knowledge  concerning  him, 
and  could  not  be  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  understand¬ 
ing,  The  assertion  then  of  the  proposition  that  Christianity  is  a 
revelation /rom  God  seems  to  assume  that  those  to  whom  the  pro¬ 
position  is  addressed  know  already  something  about  God,  by  means 
of  which  they  may  form  some  judgment  as  to  the  truth  of  the  pro¬ 
position,  just  as  the  Bible  opens  with  a  statement  which  virtually 
assumes  that  men  already  know  something  about  the  existence 
of  God,  though  they  might  not  know  much  about  the  world,  and 
God’s  dealings  with  it. 

Paul  began  his  address  to  the  Athenians  by  declaring  unto 
them  the  unknown  God,  and  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that,  if  in  any 
case,  when  setting  forth  the  claims  of  his  Master  and  of  himself  to 
be  received  as  divine  messengers,  who  spoke  in  God’s  name  and 
by  God’s  authority,  he  had  been  told  by  those  whom  he  addressed, 
that  they  did  not  know  or  believe  anything  about  God,  he  would 
have  stopped,  and  endeavoured,  by  appealing  to  their  natural 
reason  and  conscience,  their  natural  notions,  and  the  works  of 
creation  and  providence,  to  have  opened  up  to  them  the  funda¬ 
mental  principles  of  natural  theology  as  the  basis  on  which  to 
rest  the  proof  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission.  The  proper  direct 
evidences  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  the  proper  proofs  of  a  claim 
which  a  man  may  put  forth  to  be  received  as  a  messenger  from 
God,  commissioned  to  make  known  his  will  on  miracles — miracles 
of  knowledge  and  power — or  prophecies,  and  what  w^e  more  com¬ 
monly  call  miracles,  and  not  only  the  statement  of  the  position  to 
be  proved,  but  the  attempt  to  deduce  from  the  miracles  supposed 
or  alleged  to  have  been  performed,  an  argument  in  support  of  it, 
i.e.  an  argument  in  support  of  the  divine  commission  of  the  person 
by,  or  in  connection  with  whom  the  miracles  have  been  wrought, 
assume  or  imply  that  something  is  clearly  known  about  God. 
Prophecies  and  miracles,  viewed  by  themselves,  and  apart  from 
any  previous  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  doctrines  of  natural 
theology,  do  not  seem  to  be  capable  of  proving  more  than  the 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVLDENCES.  127 

existence  and  operation  of  some  superior  invisible  power.  In  strict 
reasoning  they  prove  this,  when  once  established  as  facts,  because 
they  cannot  otherwise  be  explained  or  accounted  for ;  but  they 
do  not  seem  capable  of  themselves  of  proving  more.  It  is  only  when, 
along  with  the  mere  miracles,  we  take  into  account  views  already 
established,  or  at  least  entertained,  upon  whatever  grounds,  of  a 
Supreme  Being  who  governs  everything,  who  is  possessed  of  moral 
excellence  himself,  who  will  not  deceive  his  creatures,  or  permit 
them  to  be  deceived,  without  giving  them  the  means  of  detect¬ 
ing  the  imposition,  that  we  can  deduce  from  the  miracles  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  those  by  whom  these  miracles  have  been  performed, 
may  be  relied  on  as  declaring  what  is  fully  entitled  to  our  submis¬ 
sion  and  obedience.  “  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  firmament  sheweth  forth  his  handiworks.’^  Those  who  have 
appeared  upon  earth  professing  to  be  commissioned  to  communi¬ 
cate  to  men  authoritative  information  concerning  religious  subjects, 
have  professed  to  speak  and  act  by  the  authority  of  the  God  who 
made  heaven  and  earth,  and  have  assumed  that  those  whom 
they  addressed  knew  something  of  the  Being  whose  commission 
and  authority  they  claim ;  and  in  the  evidence  they  adduced  in 
support  of  their  claims,  they  have  proceeded  upon  the  assumption 
of  principles  involved  in  the  views  generally  entertained  by  man¬ 
kind  concerning  this  great  Being — principles  which,  in  order  to 
give  validity  to  their  argument,  they  must  have  proceeded  to 
establish,  unless  they  had  been  conceded  to  them  by  those  whom 
they  addressed.  In  dealing  with  professed  atheists,  with  the  view 
of  leading  them  to  submit  to  the  guidance  of  men  who  profess  to 
have  been  charged  with  the  communication  of  a  supernatural 
revelation,  and  who  appeal  to  miracles  in  support  of  their  claims, 
it  would  not  seem  very  unreasonable  in  the  atheists  to  ask  for 
proof  of  the  existence  of  the  Being  in  whose  name  they  profess  to 
speak ;  and  if  they  were  referred  to  the  miracles  themselves  for  a 
proof  at  once  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  of  the  validity  of  the 
claims  of  those  who  professed  to  have  been  sent  by  him,  it  does 
not  appear  how  these  miracles  could  afford  any  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  God  to  those  who,  ex  hypothesi,  had  resisted  all  the 
evidence  in  support  of  this  great  truth  derived  from  the  ordinary 
works  of  creation  and  providence.  Miracles  indeed  afford  a  very 
specific  and  compendious  proof  of  the  existence  and  operation  of 


128 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


some  supreme  invisible  power,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  proof  of 
this  by  miracles  might  tend  indirectly  to  open  the  eyes  of  atheists 
to  the  weakness  of  those  sophisms  and  evasions  by  which  they  had 
hitherto  hardened  their  minds  against  the  evidence  from  the  ordi¬ 
nary  works  of  creation  and  providence,  and  thus  lead  to  such  a  fair 
and  candid  consideration  of  this  evidence  as  to  convince  them  of  the 
existence,  character,  and  moral  government  of  God.  But  it  is  not 
the  less  true — and  this  is  all  we  at  present  contend  for — that  an 
admission  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  natural  theology  must 
be  in  some  way  produced,  and  must  exist  and  be  in  operation, 
before  men  can  be  logically  compelled  by  miracles  to  admit  the 
divine  commission  of  those  by  whom  these  miracles  are  performed. 
The  fuller  explanation  of  this  must  be  reserved  till  we  treat  of  the 
evidence  of  miracles;  but  we  have  adverted  to  it  here  that  you 
may  not  suppose,  that  in  declining  to  occupy  much  of  your  time 
with  discussions  on  the  subject  of  natural  theology,  we  are 
insensible  of  its  importance,  especially  in  its  bearing  upon  the  full 
and  thorough  establishment  of  the  argument  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  which  is  the  main  source  of  our  knowledge,  the  only 
basis  of  our  hopes. 

In  accordance  with  a  distinction  formerly  adverted  to,  we  must 
here  observe  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  asserting  the 
necessity  of  an  acquaintance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
natural  theology  in  making  out  the  evidence  of  Christianity,  and 
asserting  the  right  of  natural  theology  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  It  is  indeed  quite  true  as  an 
abstract  position,  that  no  revelation  from  God  can  contradict 
those  views  which  are  deduced  by  reason,  rightly  and  logically, 
from  an  examination  of  the  works  of  creation  and  providence  ; 
but  the  unassisted  reason  of  man  cannot  with  certainty  deduce  a 
great  many  clear  doctrines  from  the  things  that  are  made,  and  is 
very  unable  to  infer,  even  from  the  general  notions  which  it  may 
have  formed  concerning  God,  how  he  may  be  expected  to  act  in 
certain  circumstances.  There  is  no  good  ground  for  attaching 
much  weight  to  the  supposed  deductions  of  reason  in  regard  to 
anything  like  the  details  of  the  divine  character  and  government, 
or  judging  of  what,  in  certain  circumstances,  the  holiness  or  justice 
'  of  God  would  require  or  exclude,  in  determining  beforehand  what 
is  or  is  not  worthy  of  God,  and  fitting  for  him  to  do.  One  of  the 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  129 


plainest  lessons  taught  us  by  reason  as  well  as  by  revelation  is,  that 
we  cannot  by  searching  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection — 
that  it  is  but  a  small  part  of  his  w^ays  that  we  can  know.  And 
by  means  of  this  general  doctrine  we  are  most  reasonably  entitled 
at  once  to  dispose  of  many  plausible  objections  that  may  be 
advanced  against  an  otherwise  well-accredited  revelation.  We  do 
not  indeed  well  see  how  the  general  relevancy  of  all  such  objec¬ 
tions  can  be  disputed ;  in  other  words,  we  admit  that  if  it  be 
alleged  against  a  professed  revelation  from  God  that  it  represents 
God  as  speaking  and  acting  in  a  way  that  contradicts  the  doc¬ 
trines  learned  concerning  him  from  the  works  of  creation  and  pro¬ 
vidence,  it  is  not  warrantable  at  once  and  summarily  to  set  aside 
all  such  objections,  upon  the  mere  ground  that  the  revelation  is 
well  established.  If  the  revelation  be  well  established,  then  all 
these  objections  can  be  more  directly  answered  ;  and  it  is  not  un¬ 
reasonable  that  they  be  so  answered,  at  least  thus  far,  that  we  prove 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  revelation  that  can  he  clearly  shewn 
to  contradict  the  views  of  God  which  are  really  and  clearly  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  after  which  we 
are  fully  entitled  to  resolve  all  farther  difficulty  into  the  ignorance 
of  man,  the  weakness  of  human  reason,  and  the  authority  of  the 
revelation  on  which  we  rest.  That  much  more  time  and  labour 
have  been  spent  by  the  defenders  of  revelation  in  answering  objec¬ 
tions  of  this  sort  than  their  intrinsic  importance  demanded,  is 
true ;  but  we  do  not  consider  the  time  and  labour  as  misspent, 
— and  indeed  such  a  notion  would  be  to  pronounce  a  sentence  of 
utter  uselessness  upon  the  whole  of  Butlers  Analogy, — were  it 
only  upon  this  ground,  that  Christianity,  while  professing  to  rest 
her  claims  mainly  upon  the  proper  direct  historical  evidence  of  the 
divine  commission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  should  not  appear  to 
shrink  from  any  objections,  but  to  be  ever  ready  to  meet  all  assail¬ 
ants,  whatever  ground  they  may  choose  to  occupy. 

There  are,  then,  just  two  points  connected  with  natural  theo¬ 
logy  which  are  of  much  practical  importance — First,  that  it  be 
established  that  while  men  are  sinners,  and  inexcusable  in  their 
ignorance  of  God  and  disobedience  to  his  laws,  it  cannot  be 
shewn  from  the  light  of  nature  that  they  can  be  firmly  assured 
that  God  will  pardon  sin  upon  repentance,  or  ascertain  certainly 

I 


130 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


whether  or  not,  and  upon  what  terms,  sin  will  be  forgiven ;  and 
second,  that  it  be  distinctly  ascertained  how  far  the  informations 
of  natural  theology  are  necessary  in  order  to  lay  a  firm  basis  for 
the  proof  from  miracles  and  otherwise,  in  support  of  a  supernatural 
revelation,  and  that  it  be  shewn  that  all  that  is  necessary  for  this 
purpose  is  true  and  certain,  while  nothing  certain  can  be  produced 
from  that  source  on  the  opposite  side.  The  practical  importance 
of  the  subject  lies  much  more,  on  grounds  already  explained,  in 
the  second' than  in  the  first  of  these  points,  because  a  previous 
proof  of  the  necessity  of  a  revelation  is  not  needful  in  order  to 
establish  the  position  that  a  revelation  has  been  actually  given, 
and  because  when  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation  has  been 
once  satisfactorily  established,  we  have  an  abundant  source  from 
which  we  can  derive  clear  and  certain  views  in  regard  to  God’s 
character  and  moral  government  on  which  we  may  securely  rely^ 
especially  as  we  can  easily  prove  that  nothing  revealed  to  us  in 
Scripture  can  he  shewn  to  contradict  any  views  of  God  deduced 
in  the  fair  use  of  reason  from  the  contemplation  of  the  works  of 
creation  and  providence. 

From  views  taught  us  in  natural  theology  we  deduce  the  proba¬ 
bility,  as  well  as  the  desirableness,  of  a  revelation,  i.e.  we  can  shew 
that  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  God  should  have 
supernaturally  communicated  to  men  some  further  information 
concerning  himself,  and  concerning  their  duty  and  destiny,  than 
men  usually  have  derived,  or  probably  could  derive,  from  the 
unassisted  use  of  their  natural  faculties.  It  is  not  difficult  to  con¬ 
ceive  how  it  is  that  miracles,  supposing  them  to  be  attested  by  our 
senses,  or  established  by  competent  testimony,  do,  when  viewed  in 
connection  with  the  great  doctrines  of  natural  theology,  afford 
satisfactory  evidence  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  or  of  the  divine 
commission  of  those  who  profess  to  have  been  entrusted  with  it ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  very  easy  to  conceive  how,  sup¬ 
posing  God  to  have  intended  to  communicate  to  men  a  supernatural 
revelation  of  his  will  through  the  instrumentality  of  men,  he  could 
have  provided  those  whom  he  might  select  as  his  instruments  with 
any  adequate  proof  to  others  that  they  were  commissioned  by  him, 
and  spoke  in  his  name,  except  by  giving  them  a  power  of  working 
miracles,  or  by  working  miracles  in  connection  with  them,  and 
thereby  giving  the  seal  of  his  attestation  to  their  claims.  And  if 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  131 


so,  everything  that  illustrates  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God,  in 
giving  a  supernatural  revelation  of  his  will,  and  confirms  the  proba- 
bilit}?^  of  his  doing  so,  equally  tends  to  confirm  the  probability  of 
miracles,  and  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God  in  performing  them. 
Attempts,  indeed,  have  been  made  to  shew  from  natural  theology 
the  impossibility  of  miracles,  upon  the  ground  that  the  supposition 
that  miracles  were  needed  or  were  wrought  reflected  upon  the 
wisdom  of  God.  This  is  a  notion  that  has  been  much  insisted  upon 
by  the  modern  anti-supernaturalists,  as  they  are  called,  of  Ger¬ 
many — men  who  call  themselves  Christians,  and  profess  to  believe, 
in  some  sense,  in  the  Christian  revelation,  who  yet  deny  altogether 
that  miracles  have  ever  been  performed,  and  explain  away  the 
miracles  recorded  in  Scripture  by  ascribing  the  events  themselves 
wholly  to  natural  causes,  and  the  mode  in  which  they  are  described 
in  Scripture  to  an  accommodation  to  the  common  modes  of  think¬ 
ing  and  speaking  that  then  prevailed.  At  present  we  have  to  do 
with  the  notions  of  these  men  only  in  so  far  as  they  deny  that 
miracles  are  possible,  and  base  their  denial  upon  the  idea  that  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  wisdom  of  God  that  he  should  have  recourse 
to  miracles,  thus  making  a  doctrine  deduced  from  natural  theology 
to  overturn,  or  rather  to  cut  off  beforehand  the  main  proof  of 
an  external  kind  on  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  rests.  But 
this  is  a  piece  of  mere  presumptuous  speculation  that  has  no  solid 
foundation  to  rest  upon. 

The  notion,  as  expressed  in  Wegscheider’s  Institutiones  Theo¬ 
logies  Christiance  Dogmaticce,  which  is  regarded  as  the  text-book 
of  infidel  rationalism,  is  this,  that  a  belief  in  a  supernatural  and 
miraculous  revelation  cannot  be  reconciled — “  cum  idea  dei  eterni 
semper  sibi  constantis,  omnipotentis,  omniscii,  et  sapientissimi  ” 
(sect.  1 2,  p.  49).  In  endeavouring  to  establish  this  position,  the 
author  confounds  it  with  another  and  totally  distinct  one — viz. 
this,  that  miracles  cannot  be  proved.  If  it  could  be  shewn  that 
miracles  could  not  be  proved,  this  would  certainly  be  a  very  strong 
presumption  that  no  miracles  have  ever,  in  point  of  fact,  been 
wrought ;  but  it  would  not  prove  that  it  was  in  itself  inconsistent 
with  the  divine  wisdom  that  the  ordinary  visible  course  of  nature 
and  providence  should  ever  be  departed  from  ;  and  accordingly  the 
only  argument  he  adduces  really  bearing  upon  the  assertion  which 
he  made,  and  has  undertaken  to  establish,  is  the  allegation  that 


132 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


the  idea  of  a  miracle,  and  of  its  supposed  use  and  necessity,  im¬ 
plies  some  deficiency  in  the  system  which  God  appointed  for  the 
government  of  the  world,  and  according  to  which  he  ordinarily 
acts,  and  is  therefore  precluded  by  right  views  of  his  immuta¬ 
bility,  omniscience,  and  wisdom.  This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
d  priori  objections  commonly  adduced  against  both  the  evidences 
and  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  by  infidels, 
whether  they  avow  their  infidelity,  or,  like  the  German  rational¬ 
ists,  or  anti-supernaturalists,  cloak  it  under  a  sort  of  profession  of 
Christianity.  Now,  the  best  proof  of  the  possibility  of  a  thing  is 
the  proof  that  it  has  actually  taken  place.  The  best  proof  of  the 
possibility  of  miracles  is  the  proof  that  miracles  have  in  point  of 
fact  been  performed,  and  that  miracles  have  been  performed  can 
be,  and  has  been,  proved  by  evidence  which  cannot  be  disposed  of, 
except  by  having  recourse  to  absolute  scepticism — i.e.  by  denying 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  truth,  or  that  there  is  any  possibility 
of  ascertaining  it.  This,  of  course,  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the 
objection;  but  it  is  desirable,  further,  to  shew  that  no  sufficient 
evidence  can  be  adduced  that  the  idea  of  a  miracle  is  opposed  to 
the  immutability  and  perfect  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  God. 
The  burden  of  proof,  of  course,  lies  upon  those  who  make  the 
objection.  It  is  to  be  observed  generally  that  it  is  unwarranted 
and  presumptuous  in  men  to  be  drawing  inferences  as  to  the  way 
in  which  God  will  certainly  act,  from  the  defective  and  imperfect 
conceptions  we  are  able  to  form  of  the  general  attributes  of  his 
character.  To  be  drawing  inferences  of  this  sort  implies  an 
assumption  that  we  thoroughly  know  the  whole  character,  plans, 
and  purposes  of  God,  and  the  objects  he  has  in  view.  There  are 
many  things  undoubtedly  occurring  in  the  history  of  nature  and 
providence  which  our  notions  of  the  divine  perfections  would  not 
have  led  us  to  expect,  and  do  not  fully  enable  us  to  explain.  The 
original  creation  of  the  world  in  time  was  just  as  much  a  miracle 
as  any  of  these  events  to  which  that  name  is  usually  applied,  and 
is  equally  inconsistent  with  those  views  of  the  unchangeableness 
and  omniscience  of  God  on  which  this  objection  is  founded. 
Miracles  to  be  performed  at  particular  times  for  special  purposes 
may  have  been,  and  as  their  defenders  believed  were,  compre¬ 
hended  in  God’s  original  scheme  for  the  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  this  world,  as  much  as  those  events  which  constitute  its 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  133 


ordinary  history.  The  state  of  ignorance  and  darkness  into  which 
men  who  had  no  supernatural  revelation  did  in  point  of  fact, 
under  God’s  government,  fall,  makes  it  positively  probable  that 
God  should  make  to  them  a  supernatural  revelation  of  his  will, 
and  sanction  it  by  miracles — the  only  evidence,  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  or  at  least  by  much  the  most  natural  and  obvious  species  of 
proof,  by  which  its  authority  could  be  established.  These  various 
considerations,  which  have  been  merely  indicated  or  hinted  at, 
and  which  might  easily  be  expanded  and  illustrated,  are  sufficient 
to  prove  that  the  objection  has  no  real  weight,  that  it  has  no  firm 
or  solid  basis  on  which  men  are  entitled  to  take  their  stand,  and 
furnishes  no  sufficient  reason  why  they  should  refuse  to  give  a 
candid  and  patient  attention  to  the  actual  proofs  by  which  we 
profess  to  establish  the  position  that  miracles  have  been  wrought, 
and  wrought  in  such  circumstances  as  to  establish  the  truth  and 
certainty  of  the  Christian  revelation.  And  this  is  all  that  we  are 
called  upon  to  do  in  dealing  with  such  an  objection. 

The  allegation  that  miracles,  even  admitting  that  they  might 
possibly  be  wrought,  could  not  possibly  be  rationally  proved  so  as 
to  command  our  assent,  does  not  belong  to  the  subject  of  natural 
theology,  inasmuch  as  the  alleged  impossibility  of  proving  miracles, 
as  distinguished  from  the  alleged  impossibility  of  their  taking 
place,  does  not  profess  to  rest  upon  any  allegation  as  to  the 
character  and  moral  government  of  God,  but  only  on  certain 
allegations  as  to  the  constitution  and  faculties  of  man,  and  the 
grounds  and  sources  of  the  knowledge  which  he  can  acquire ;  and 
therefore  we  shall  not  at  present  advert  to  it. 

There  is  no  ground,  then,  for  maintaining  that  anything  can  be 
fairly  and  clearly  deduced  from  the  doctrines  of  natural  theology 
that  is  destructive  of,  or  even  unfavourable  to,  the  proofs  or  evi¬ 
dences  of  a  supernatural  revelation ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  natural 
theology  makes  discoveries  and  suggestions  which  make  it  posi¬ 
tively  probable  that  God  should  make  a  supernatural  revelation, 
and  of  course  that  he  should  do  everything  such  as  the  performance 
of  miracles,  which  is  fitted  to  convince  men  of  the  reality  of  the 
revelation  he  may  have  made. 

The  existence,  attributes,  and  moral  government  of  God  may  be 
said  to  form  the  basis  of  all  religion,  and  hence  the  importance 
and  necessity  of  your  having  clear  and  impressive  conceptions  of 


134 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


all  that  can  in  any  way  be  learned  about  him,  and  of  the  certainty 
of  your  knowledge,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  The  great 
end  of  man  “  is  to  glorify  God,  and  to  enjoy  him  for  ever/’  To 
“  glorify  God  ”  implies  that  you  know  him,  that  you  are  acquainted 
with  his  character,  that  what  you  do  know  of  him  is  deeply 
impressed  upon  your  minds,  and  that  all  you  have  really  learned 
concerning  him  is  producing  its  proper  practical  effect  in  regulating 
your  sentiments  and  feelings  in  regard  to  him.  This,  and  this 
only,  is  glorifying  God.  It  was  with  this  view,  and  for  this  pur¬ 
pose,  that  God  has  made  himself  known  to  men,  and  with  a  view 
to  this  object  are  men  bound  to  exercise  their  faculties  in  acquiring 
a  knowledge  of  God,  and  in  applying  the  knowledge  which  they 
may  have  acquired.  To  enjoy  God  for  ever ’’implies  that  you 
know  the  relation  in  which  you  stand  to  him,  the  worship  and  the 
duty  which  he  requires  of  you,  and  that  you  act  in  accordance 
with  the  knowledge  you  may  attain  upon  these  points.  God  has 
regulated  his  works  of  creation  and  providence  with  an  express 
reference  to  the  object  of  making  himself  known  to  his  creatures, 
that  they  might  glorify  him,  and  all  the  supernatural  revelations 
which  he  has  made  of  himself  to  men  were  directed  to  the  same 
object.  One  purpose  for  which  He  who  was  the  brightness  of  God’s 
glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  person  became  a  partaker  of 
flesh  and  blood,  and  tabernacled  upon  earth,  was  that  he  might 
reveal  to  us  the  Father. 

We  have  a  remarkable  statement  connected  with  this  subject 
in  the  11th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  verse  6th; — 
‘‘  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him :  for  he  that 
cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him.”  This  faith  that  is  necessary  to 
please  God  is  not  necessarily  dependent  upon  a  supernatural 
revelation  which  God  may  have  given  concerning  himself.  All 
knowledge  of  God — an  unseen  being  not  cognisable  by  our  senses 
— provided  it  be  real  and  efficacious,  may  be  called  faith,  and  right 
views  of  God  and  of  our  relation  to  him,  from  whatever  source 
derived,  are  indispensable  to  our  enjoying  his  favour  and  attaining 
to  true  happiness.  “  He  that  cometh  to  God,”  in  the  apostle’s 
language,  just  means  he  who  desires  so  to  worship  and  serve  God 
as  to  attain  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour  ;  and  in  order  to  the 
gratification  of  this  desire,  and  the  attainment  of  this  object,  it  is 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  135 


indispensable  as  the  basis  and  foundation  of  all  that  he  be  con¬ 
vinced  and  really  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he  rewards 
them  that  seek  him.  The  belief,  then,  in  the  existence  and  moral 
character  and  government  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  all  religion, 
of  all  acceptable  worship  and  service  of  him,  and  it  is  of  primary 
importance  that  this  foundation  be  well  laid  and  thoroughly 
secured,  that  men  do  know  and  thoroughly  understand,  as  far  as 
their  feeble  faculties  admit  of  it,  all  that  can  be  known  concerning 
him,  and  make  it  their  constant  study  to  increase  and  extend  this 
knowledge,  to  be  more  deeply  impressed  with  its  truth  and  cer¬ 
tainty,  and  to  be  ever  applying  it  to  the  promotion  of  piety  and 
holiness. 

We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  doctrines  of  the  existence, 
character,  and  moral  government  of  God^.  and  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  with  the  obligations  of  worship  and 
obedience  which  are  founded  on  these  truths,  as  the  doctrines  and 
duties  of  natural  religion,  because  we  can  derive  some  information 
concerning  them  from  the  light  of  nature  and  the  exercise  of  our 
natural  faculties ;  and  perhaps  on  this  very  account  there  is  some¬ 
thing  of  a  tendency  in  some  men  to  regard  them  with  little  interest^ 
as  but  simple  and  elementary  truths  when  compared  with  what  are 
regarded  as  the  peculiar  doctrines  and  the  higher  mysteries  of 
revelation.  In  a  certain  sense  and  in  a  certain  aspect,  there  is 
some  truth  in  this  notion ;  but  it  is  apt  to  be  perverted  and  mis¬ 
applied,  and  it  is  perverted  and  misapplied  whenever  it  leads  men 
to  forget  or  to  fail  in  fully  realising  the  truth  that  right  views  of 
the  character  of  God  and  of  his  relation  to  us,  are  indeed  the 
foundation  of  all  true  religion,  whether  regarded  as  a  mere  system 
of  doctrine,  or  as  a  means  of  forming  the  character  and  regulating 
the  conduct.  Those  indeed  very  imperfectly  comprehend  and  very 
greatly  injure  the  Christian  revelation,  who  represent  it  as  being- 
little  more  than  a  republication  of  the  law  of  nature.  But  it 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  one  object  of  Christianity,  viewed  as 
a  revelation,  was  to  make  known  to  us  more  fully  the  character 
of  God,  and  our  relation  to  him,  that  thus  we  might  be  effectually 
led  to  worship  and  glorify  him  as  God,  and  be  duly  thankful  for 
all  his  mercies.  One  reason,  though  certainly  a  subordinate  one, 
why  Christ  came  into  the  world,  Avas  that  he  might  reveal  to  us 
the  Father,  and  bring  life  and  immortality  to  light  by  his  gospel, 


136 


TENTH  LECTURE. 


and  one  use  therefore  which  we  ought  to  make  of  all  that  we  have 
learned  concerning  Christ,  and  of  all  that  he  has  by  word  or  deed 
made  known  to  us,  is  that  we  may  be  fully  enlightened  in  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  may  be  led  to  glorify  him  in  our  bodies 
and  in  our  spirits,  which  are  his. 

Though  the  doctrines  concerning  God  are  in  some  measure 
discoverable  by  natural  reason,  they  are  much  more  fully  opened 
up  to  us  in  the  Christian  revelation ;  but  with  all  the  additional 
light  there  cast  upon  the  divine  character,  it  remains  true  that 
the  knowledge  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  all  true  religion,  as 
including  at  once  the  acceptable  worship  of  God  and  due  obedience 
to  his  will.  The  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  the 
knowledge  of  God,  is  indeed  necessary  to  eternal  life ;  and  men, 
that  they  may  know  God  aright,  must  see  him  as  he  is  revealed 
in  the  face  of  his  Son.  But  yet  it  is  true,  that  unless  their  eyes 
have  been  opened  to  behold  the  glory  of  God,  they  are  still 
walking  in  darkness ;  unless  they  are  animated  by  the  fear  of 
God,  they  have  not  yet  reached  the  beginning  of  wisdom ;  and 
that  unless  they  are  walking  with  God,  realising  his  presence, 
contemplating  his  perfection,  reverencing  his  power  and  majesty, 
relying  upon  his  mercy  and  faithfulness,  and  acknowledging  him 
in  all  their  ways,  they  have  not  yet  been  adopted  into  his  family, 
and  they  are  not  yet  preparing  for  his  presence.  You  are  not, 
then,  to  regard  this  knowledge  of  God’s  character  and  government 
as  elementary  and  comparatively  unnecessary,  because  it  may  be 
derived  in  some  measure  from  natural  reason.  It  was  one  object 
of  Christ’s  mission,  and  of  the  Christian  revelation,  to  open  it 
up  more  fully,  and  to  impress  it  more  deeply,  and  the  way  in 
which  this  knowledge  of  God  is  set  before  us  in  the  Christian 
revelation,  in  connection  with  the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  flesh  and  the  great  ends  of  his  mission,  is  that  which 
in  the  hand  of  the  Spirit  is  to  be  the  great  means  of  changing  our 
natures  and  sanctifying  our  souls.  And  hence  the  imperative 
duty  of  our  diligently  and  faithfully  employing  the  revelation  by 
Christ  and  concerning  Christ,  for  the  purpose  of  leading  us  to 
sanctify  the  Lord  God  in  our  hearts,  and  to  cherish  habitually 
right  impressions  of  his  perfections  and  his  providence,  of  his 
character  and  his  government.  Our  Saviour  charged  the  Sadducees 
with  erring,  because  they  knew  not  the  Scriptures  nor  the  power 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY  AND  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  137 


of  God,  and  men  may  still  fall  into  great  errors,  both  theoretical 
and  practical,  not  merely  from  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
also  because,  in  combination  with  this,  they  are  ignorant  of  the  . 
divine  perfections  and  government,  because  they  do  not  fully 
understand,  realise,  and  apply  what  God  has  made  known  to 
them  in  his  works  and  in  his  word  concerning  the  perfections 
which  he  possesses  and  manifests,  and  the  principles  by  which 
his  government  of  the  world  is  regulated. 

[Again  recommend  Butler’s  Analogy  and  Chalmers’s  Natural 
Theology 


LECTURE  XI. 


IMPOETANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  EVIDENCES 

OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


Having  very  briefly  explained  to  you  the  general  character  of 
natural  theology,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  rather 
for  the  purpose  of  assisting  you  in  understanding  its  general  posi¬ 
tion  in  theological  science,  and  the  references  which  you  will  often 
find  to  it  in  theological  works,  than  with  any  intention  of  discussing 
it,  and  having  adverted  to  the  connection  subsisting  between  the 
doctrines  of  natural  theology  and  the  proof  by  which  the  truth  of 
Christianity  is  established,  we  now  proceed  to  consider  the  proof 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself.  And  here  let  me  briefly  explain 
to  you  the  object  I  have  in  view  in  treating  of  this  subject.  I 
have  no  intention  of  expounding  fully  the  evidence  of  Christianity, 
as  if  my  object  and  my  business  were  to  convince  that  Christi¬ 
anity  is  true,  and  to  draw  out  all  its  proofs  in  detail  in  order  to 
produce  that  conviction  in  minds.  You  are  already  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  you  have,  I  trust,  been  the  sub¬ 
jects  of  such  changes  and  experiences  as  to  know  something  of  that 
witness  in  yourselves  which  the  Scriptures  tell  us  believers  have, 
which  should  satisfy  you  that  Christianity  cannot  be  a  cunningly 
devised  fable,  and  fully  preserve  you  from  the  assaults  of  infidelity. 
But  the  evidence  of  Christianity  forms  an  important  department  of 
theological  literature,  and  it  is  right  that  you  should  acquire  some 
knowledge  of  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  in  general  to  be  able 
to  give  to  him  that  asketh  them  “  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in 
them.”  It  is  peculiarly  the  duty  of  ministers  to  be  able  to  defend 
the  truth  of  their  religion  in  opposition  to  gainsayers,  to  remove 
doubts  and  difficulties,  and  to  unfold,  whenever  they  may  be  called 
upon,  the  grounds  and  reasons  upon  which  they  urge  men  to 


IMPORTANCE  OF  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES. 


139 


receive  Christ  as  their  Saviour  and  their  master.  You  are  bound  to 
acquire  such  a  knowledge  of  the  evidences  by  which  the  truth  of 
Christianity  may  be  established  as  to  fit  you  for  the  discharge  of 
this  duty,  and  my  business  is  to  see  that  you  acquire  this  know¬ 
ledge,  and  to  assist  you  in  the  acquisition  of  it.  You  ought  to  read 
some  of  the  best  works  that  have  been  written  in  proof  of  the  trutli 
of  Christianity,  and  carefully  to  digest  them.  You  are  to  make 
yourselves  somewhat  acquainted  with  the  way  in  which  infidels 
have  assailed  Christianity,  and  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests,  and 
to  see  that  by  study  and  meditation  you  fully  apprehend  and  can 
distinctly  explain  the  grounds  on  which  their  objections  can  be 
refuted,  and  on  which,  notwithstanding  all  the  objections  that  have 
been  raised,  the  truth  of  Christianity  can  be  satisfactorily  estab¬ 
lished.  All  these  things  are  to  be  found  in  books,  and  it  is  chiefly 
by  the  perusal  of  books,  and  by  meditation  upon  their  contents, 
that  you  must  make  yourselves  acquainted  with  them.  A  vast 
deal,  as  might  be  supposed,  has  been  written  upon  the  subject  of 
the  evidences  of  Christianity.  On  the  discussion  of  no  subject, 
indeed,  have  more  talent  and  learning  been  brought  to  bear ;  and 
if  my  object  was  to  bring  out  fully  the  evidence  of  Christianity,  as 
if  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  yovu  of  its  truth,  it  would  be  an 
easy  matter  to  occupy  the  whole  session  with  a  summary  or 
abrido^rnent  of  what  has  been  written  in  vindication  of  the  various 
branches  of  Christian  evidence,  and  in  refutation  of  the  different 
objections  which  have  been  adduced  against  it.  But  this  I  would 
reckon  a  waste  of  my  time,  as  well  as  of  yours.  It  is  needless  for 
me  to  be  going  fully  over  here  what  you  can  easily  find  in  abund¬ 
ance  of  works  to  which  your  attention  may  be  directed,  as  fully 
and  conclusively  argued,  as  thoroughly  established  by  facts  and 
reasoning,  and  as  impressively  illustrated  as  the  human  faculties 
admit  of.  One  of  the  most  able  of  the  living  writers  on  the  Chris¬ 
tian  evidences  has  truly  said — 

It  would  be  strange  indeed,  and  much  to  be  lamented  as  well  as  wondered 
at,  if  the  uninterrupted  efforts  of  1800  years  had  left  much  to  be  gathered  in 
the  held  of  evidence.  A  few  ripe  and  fruitful  ears  may  have  been  forgotten 
in  haste,  or  overlooked  by  carelessness  ;  but  the  riches  of  the  harvest  must 
long  have  been  gathered  by  the  hrst  and  most  assiduous  reapers,  nor  can  we 
expect  to  employ  ourselves  in  any  other  or  more  useful  labour  than  that  of 
sifting  the  produce,  and  ascertaining  its  aggregate  amount.  Still  more  idle 
would  it  be  to  study  to  be  difficult,  in  hope  of  being  counted  as  profound. 


140 


ELEVENTH  LECTURE. 


Difficulty  is  in  itself  no  essential  mark  of  excellency,  and  the  wise  providence 
of  God  has  so  ordained  that  the  most  valuable  truths  are  usually  the  most 
simple  and  easy  to  be  understood/’’ 

It  is  true  indeed  that  the  assaults  of  infidels  upon  Christianity 
and  its  evidences  must  be  met  and  exposed,  as  they  have  always 
been,  whatever  variety  of  form  or  aspect  they  may  assume,  and 
from  whatever  quarter  the  attack  may  be  made.  But  nothing  of 
any  great  importance  requiring  special  notice  or  attention  has 
recently  appeared  against  the  evidences  of  Christianity.  It  is  true 
also  that  occasionally  a  man  of  extraordinary  powers  is  raised  up, 
who  casts  the  irradiations  of  genius  over  a  subject  that  might  seem 
to  be  exhausted,  and  brings  out  in  more  striking  and  vivid  light 
than  had  ever  before  been  exhibited  some  of  the  facts  and  the 
reasonings  on  which  the  Christian  argument  rests.  And  of  this 
we  have  reason  to  thank  God  that  we  have  an  instance  in  him 
who  recently  presided  over  theological  education  in  this  institu¬ 
tion,  whose  sudden  removal  from  the  midst  of  us  we  all  still  deeply 
deplore,  and  whom  it  were  needless  and  perhaps  unbecoming  in  me 
formally  to  eulogise.  The  evidences  of  Christianity  had  long  been 
with  Dr  Chalmers  a  favourite  subject  of  study.  He  brought  all  the 
powers  of  his  mind  to  bear  upon  it,  and  after  the  most  mature  and 
deliberate  reflection  he  gave  his  views  upon  the  subject  to  the 
world  in  two  volumes  of  his  works,  entitled,  On  the  Miraculous 
and  Internal  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Revelation,  and  the 
Authority  of  its  Records.  Dr  Chalmers’  work  on  this  subject  is 
in  many  respects  the  fullest  and  the  best  book  on  the  Christian 
evidence  in  the  English  language.  And  it  will  be  our  text-book 
in  this,  the  first  division  of  our  course.  It  is  my  duty  to  see  that 
you  make  yourselves  acquainted  with  the  leading  principles  on 
which  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  established.  I  know  no  work 
where  all  the  leading  topics  that  enter  into  the  Christian  argu¬ 
ment  are  set  forth  in  a  way  at  once  so  conclusive,  so  interesting, 
and  so  impressive;  and  I  know  no  means  by  which  I  can  secure 
that  you  will  be  so  speedily  and  so  thoroughly  furnished,  either  in 
point  of  knowledge  or  impression,  with  nearly  all  that  is  essential 
upon  this  question,  as  by  seeing  that  you  have  mastered  it.  It  is 
but  an  outline  of  the  leading  principles  of  the  subject  that  can  be 

’  Benson’s  Hulsean  Lectures  for  1820  on  “  The  Evidences  of  Christianity,”  &c., 
Discourse  iii,  p.  54. 


IMPORTANCE  OF  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES. 


141 


given  here,  either  by  lectures  or  by  examinations  on  a  text-book, 
the  filling  up  of  the  details,  and  especially  the  acquiring  a  know¬ 
ledge  of,  and  the  fixing  in  your  minds  many  of  those  matters  of 
fact  on  which  some  parts  of  the  proof  depend,  must  come  from 
your  own  reading  of  the  books  in  which  they  are  fully  explained. 
All  I  propose  to  do  in  this  branch  of  the  subject,  in  addition  to 
making  such  observations  and  explanations  as  the  text-book  may 
suggest  or  call  for,  and  pointing  out  where  fuller  and  more  detailed 
information  upon  particular  topics  may  be  obtained,  is  just  to  give 
a  brief  statement  of  the  outline  of  the  argument,  of  the  general 
nature  and  import  of  the  different  parts  or  branches  of  which  it 
consists,  and  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  stand  related 
to  each  other. 

My  business  is  to  bring  before  you  the  best  and  most  useful 
matter  that  may  be  accessible  upon  the  different  topics  with  which 
it  is  necessary  for  you  to  be  acquainted,  and  to  assist  you  in  under¬ 
standing  and  applying  it ;  and  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to 
occupy  you  at  any  length  with  expositions  of  my  own  upon 
subjects  which  have  been  much  better  discussed  in  works  which 
ought  at  any  rate  to  be  perused  and  studied  by  you. 

In  proceeding  to  consider  the  general  subject  of  the  evidences 
of  Christianity,  the  first  thing  to  be  attended  to,  as  in  most  dis¬ 
cussions  about  subjects  that  are  controverted,  is  the  state  of  the 
question,  or  the  precise  and  exact  statement  of  what  it  is  that  is 
asserted  on  the  one  side  and  denied  on  the  other.  Now,  the 
question  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the 
divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Chris¬ 
tianity  might  be  true,  even  although  the  Scriptures  were  not  or 
could  not  be  proved  to  be  inspired  by  God  as  an  infallible  directory 
to  guide  us,  and  although  we  could  have  learned  what  Christ 
taught  only  from  some  other  and  less  perfect  source, — though  it 
should  be  observed  that  the  converse  of  this  position  does  not  hold 
good.  In  other  words,  we  cannot  establish  the  divine  origin  and 
inspiration  of  the  books  of  Scripture  without  thereby  proving  the 
truth  of  Christianity.  This  distinction  between  the  question  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity  and  that  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  ought  to  be  kept  in  view,  because  it  aids  us  in 
rightly  understanding  the  arrangement  and  connection  of  the 
different  branches  of  the  Christian  evidence,  and  because  it  enables 


142 


ELEVENTH  LECTURE, 


us  more  clearly  to  comprehend  the  merits  of  a  controversy,  to  be 
afterwards  adverted  to,  which  has  been  carried  on  between  some 
who  concur  in  admitting  not  only  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but 
even  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  On  the  discussions 
carried  on  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Reformers  on  the 
question.  How  do  we  know  and  prove  the  Scriptures  to  be  the 
Word  of  God  ?  the  arguments  of  the  Reformers  have,  we  think, 
been  sometimes  misunderstood  and  misrepresented,  from  its  being 
supposed  that  this  question  was  identical  with  the  other,  viz..  How 
do  we  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity  ? 

The  question,  then,  about  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  just  this  : 
Were  the  claims  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  his  apostles  to  be  received 
as  divine  messengers,  specially  commissioned  by  God,  and 
authorised  to  speak  in  his  name,  valid,  or  were  they  not  ?  Now, 
in  stating  the  question  in  this  way,  you  observe  it  is  assumed  that 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  existed,  and  existed  in  the  time  and 
place  usually  understood  and  believed,  i.e.  in  the  land  of  Judea, 
about  1800  years  ago,  and  did  then  and  there  put  forth  claims  to 
be  received  as  divine  messengers,  who  were  commissioned  to  make 
known  God’s  will  to  men.  This  is  assumed,  because  it  is  conceded 
by  the  great  body  of  infidels,  i.e.  of  those  who  maintain  that  these 
claims,  which  they  admit  to  have  been  put  forth,  were  not  valid  or 
well-founded.  There  have,  indeed,  been  a  few  persons  who,  in  the 
bitterness  of  their  hatred  to  the  truth,  or  in  mere  wanton  reckless¬ 
ness,  have  affected  to  doubt  or  deny  that  such  a  person  as  Jesus 
Christ  ever  existed, — a  notion  scarcely  worthy  of  exposure,  though 
it  seems  to  have  suggested  the  idea  of  a  very  clever  and  ingenious 
pamphlet  published  anonymously,  but  understood  to  have  been 
written  by  Dr  Whately,  the  present  distinguished  Archbishop  of 
Dublin,  entitled.  Historical  Doubts  about  the  Existence  of  Napo¬ 
leon  Bonaparte.  Few  infidels,  however,  have  hesitated  to  concede 
that  Christ  and  his  apostles  appeared  in  Judea  about  1800  years  ago, 
and  put  forth  these  claims.  They  have  conceded  this,  just  because 
they  could  not  deny  it  without  overthrowing  all  faith  in  history, 
and  all  the  ordinary  principles  by  which  men  of  common  sense  are 
influenced.  For  not  only  is  this  attested  by  heathen  historians, 
who  are  reckoned  good  authorities,  and  are  therefore  credited  in 
other  matters,  but  the  whole  history  of  literature,  the  whole 
history  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  nations  of  Europe  for  the  last 


IMPORTANCE  OF  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES. 


143 


1800  years,  may  be  said  to  attest  it ;  for  the  whole  series  of  events, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical,  and  the  whole  series  of  literary  productions 
establish  or  assume  both  an  infinite  number  of  particular  facts  and 
circumstances,  and  also  a  general  state  of  matters  in  regard  to 
almost  everything  in  which  men’s  minds  have  been  interested 
in  every  subsequent  age,  which  necessarily  imply,  and  therefore 
prove,  that  about  the  time  and  place  specified  these  men  existed, 
these  claims  were  put  forth,  were  admitted  by  some  and  rejected 
by  others,  and  gradually  gained,  in  the  face  of  much  opposition  and 
persecution,  an  ascendancy  over  the  Homan  empire  or  the  civilized 
world.  All  Christians,  of  course,  assert  and  maintain  that  the 
claims  put  forth  by  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  to  be 
received  as  expressly  commissioned  by  God,  were  valid  and  well- 
founded — in  other  words,  that  these  men  were  specially  sent  by 
God,  explicitly  authorised  by  him  to  make  known  his  will  to  men, 
and  that  therefore  we  are  bound  to  receive,  as  coming  immediately 
from  God,  and  as  resting  upon  his  authority,  whatever  it  can  be 
proved  that  they  taught  in  his  name.  This  view  of  the  matter  has 
not  been  universally  adopted — in  other  words,  it  has  been  made  a 
subject  of  controversial  discussion.  The  claims  which  Christ  and  his 
immediate  followers  put  forth,  to  be  received  as  divine  messengers 
authorised  to  reveal  God’s  will  to  men,  were  received  and  sub¬ 
mitted  to  by  many,  but  they  were  also  rejected  by  many.  Their 
claims  have  been  since  admitted  by  the  great  majority  of  those 
who  in  every  age  and  country  have  been  most  eminently  dis¬ 
tinguished  for  talent  and  learning,  for  piety  and  moral  worth  ; 
but  there  have  always  been  some  who  denied  and  resisted  them, 
and  exerted  all  their  ingenuity  to  prove  them  to  be  unfounded. 
Attacks  are  made  from  time  to  time  upon  the  Christian  evidences 
which  it  is  needful  to  answer.  Infidels  are  occasionally  met  with 
in  society  whose  objections  may  need  to  be  confuted,  and  hence 
the  propriety  of  ministers  of  the  gospel  being  familiar  with  the 
grounds  on  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  may  be  established, 
and  the  objections  that  have  been  adduced  against  it  answered. 

Those  who  may  come  forward  to  claim  the  submission  and 
obedience  of  men,  upon  the  ground  that  they  have  been  commis¬ 
sioned  by  God  and  authorised  to  make  known  his  will,  are,  of 
course,  bound  to  produce  their  credentials,  to  set  before  men 
sufficient  and  satisfactory  evidence  that  God  has  commissioned 


144 


ELEVENTH  LECTURE. 


them  ;  and  this  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  professed  to 
do.  While  they  claimed  to  be  received  as  divine  teachers,  and 
called  upon  men  to  listen  and  submit  to  their  instructions,  they 
produced  evidence  by  which  they  thought  that  men  ought  to  be 
satisfied,  and  by  which,  in  point  of  fact,  many  were  satisfied,  that 
God  did  sanction  and  authorise  their  teaching.  And  it  is  still 
true  that  the  onus  'prohandi  lies  upon  those  who  assert  that 
Christianity  is  a  divine  revelation,  and  call  upon  men  to  submit 
to  it.  When  ministers  call  upon  men  to  receive  Christ  as  their 
Saviour  and  Master,  they  of  course  assume  that  he  is  entitled  to 
these  characters  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  claims  he  put  forth 
were  well-founded  ;  and  if  this  should  be  questioned  or  denied  by 
those  whom  they  address,  it  would  be  their  duty,  in  suitable 
circumstances,  to  prove  and  establish  it.  But  while  the  onus 
prohandi  lies  upon  the  defenders  of  Christianity,  and  while  they 
are  bound  to  establish  the  validity  of  the  claims  put  forth  by  its 
founders,  they  are  not  bound  to  remove  every  difficulty  that  may 
be  started,  or  to  refute  every  cavil  that  may  be  brought  forward. 
We  believe  many  things,  on  the  ground  that  the  proper  direct 
evidence  in  support  of  them  is  valid  and  satisfactory,  and  cannot 
be  answered,  while  yet  there  may  be  difficulties  connected  with 
the  things  themselves,  or  with  the  proof  on  which  they  rest,  which 
may  not  admit  of  being  thoroughly  explained  when  taken  by 
themselves,  but  which  yet  afford  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  body 
of  direct  proof  that  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  directly  assailed, 
should  be  disregarded  or  set  aside.  So  it  is  in  regard  to  the 
evidences  of  Christianity.  Innumerable  cavils  have  been  adduced 
against  it ;  and  even  though  some  of  these,  taken  by  themselves, 
could  not  be  very  fully  explained  and  answered,  this  would  be 
no  reason  why  its  claims  should  be  rejected,  so  long  as  the  body 
and  substance  of  the  proper  direct  proof  on  which  they  rest 
remained  untouched.  You  will  find,  on  investigating  this  subject, 
that  infidels  have  seldom  or  never  grappled,  fairly  and  face  to 
face,  with  the  proper  direct  evidences,  historical  and  miraculous, 
on  which  the  claims  of  the  Christian  revelation  are  based,  but 
have  commonly  contented  themselves  with  discussing  inferior 
and  subordinate  points,  which  scarcely,  if  at  all,  affect  the  proper 
substance  of  the  question  under  discussion.  No  infidel  has  ever 
attempted  a  formal  and  regular  answer  to  any  of  the  leading 


STATE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 


145 


works  in  which  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  was 
fully  brought  out.  Every  infidel  w^ork  of  the  least  importance  or 
plausibility  has  been  answered  fully  and  thoroughly  in  all  its  parts. 
But  no  attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  give  anything  like  a 
regular  answer  to  such  works  as  Grotius’  De  Vevitate  Religionis 
Christiance,  Leslie’s  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists, 
Butler’s  Analogy,  Paley’s  Evidences,  and  many  others.  Particu¬ 
lar  statements  contained  in  these  books  may  have  been  animad¬ 
verted  upon  by  infidel  writers;  but  the  books  themselves,  as  a 
whole,  and  the  general  scope  and  substance  of  their  arguments, 
have  never  been  directly  assailed.  Infidel  authors  have  generally 
confined  themselves  to  the  discussion  of  some  one  particular  branch 
or  topic  in  the  Christian  evidences ;  and  though  there  are  some 
favourite  objections  which  few  infidel  authors,  whatever  be  the 
proper  subjects  of  their  own  works,  pass  by  unnoticed,  yet  none  of 
them  has  ever  attempted  to  exhibit,  at  one  view  and  in  one  work, 
the  whole  substance  of  the  arguments  on  the  ground  of  which 
Christianity  has  been  attacked,  and  by  which  the  proof  of  its  truth 
may  be  overturned.  The  reason  of  this  plainly  is,  that  an  attempt 
of  this  sort  would  compel  them,  in  common  decency,  to  look  the 
whole  body  and  substance  of  the  proper  direct  evidence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  more  fairly  in  the  face  than  they  reckon  at  all  safe  or 
expedient.  And  accordingly,  while  we  can  point  to  many  works 
in  which  the  whole  evidence  for  Christianity  has  been  set  forth 
and  illustrated,  there  is  not,  so  far  as  I  know  or  recollect,  any  one 
single  infidel  work  in  which  the  whole  substance  of  the  arguments 
against  it,  and  of  the  answers  to  the  different  departments  of  the 
proof  in  support  of  it,  is  to  be  found  embodied.  It  is  precisely 
for  the  same  reason  that  infidel  authors  have  seldom  engao^ed  in 
regular  controversy  with  those  who  have  defended  Christianity 
against  them  ;  and  that  when  they  have  attempted  any  answer  to 
what  had  been  written  in  reply  to  them,  they  have  not  scrupled 
to  be  guilty  of  the  most  deliberate  and  impudent  evasions  of  the 
whole  substance  of  what  had  been  written  against  them,  and  have 
adverted  only  to  some  incidental  and  subordinate  points  ;  in  other 
words,  they  have  cavilled,  but  not  answered.  Scarcely  any  wmrk 
has  ever  been  written  against  the  truth  of  Christianity  which  has 
not  been  conclusively  convicted,  not  merely  of  ignorance,  blunder- 

K 


146 


ELEVENTH  LECTURE. 


ing,  and  sophistry,  but  of  deliberate  and  intentional  dishonesty  in 
misstating  facts,  in  perverting  texts,  and  in  misrepresenting  argu¬ 
ments  ;  and  this  is  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  infidels  have 
so  seldom  attempted  anything  like  a  fair  and  honest  discussion,  by 
trying  to  answer  fully  and  formally  the  works  that  have  been 
WTitten  in  reply  to  them.  Among  the  numerous  authors  who 
wrote  more  or  less  openly  against  the  truth  of  Christianity  in 
England,  in  the  early  part  of  last  century,  scarcely  any  one 
attempted  to  answer  the  many  able  and  learned  works  which  were 
written  in  reply  to  them,  and  in  which  every  one  of  them  was 
convicted  not  only  of  error,  but  of  dishonesty.  Some  of  them 
wrote  infidel  works  after  their  former  books  had  been  answered  ; 
but  they  generally  found  it  more  convenient  to  try  to  cavil  upon 
some  other  topic  than  to  defend  their  former  cavils  which  had 
been  fully  exposed.  David  Hume,  as  we  learn  from  a  letter  of 
his  published  in  the  preface  to  Campbeirs  Dissertation  on 
Miracles,  assigned  as  the  reason  for  his  not  answering  Campbell, 
that  “  he  had  a  fixed  resolution  in  the  beginning  of  his  life 
always  to  leave  the  public  to  judge  between  his  adversaries 
and  him,  without  making  any  reply.”  This  was  certainly  a 
very  judicious  resolution  in  the  defender  of  a  bad  cause, 
though,  as  Campbell  observes,  Hume  did  not  always  adhere  to 
it,  and  it  has  been  pretty  generally  acted  upon  by  the  defenders 
of  infidelity. 

Among  the  numerous  English  infidels  of  the  early  part  of  last 
century,  there  are  but  two  exceptions  of  any  importance  to  this 
observation,  and  they  certainly  confirm  the  rule.  Collins,  in  his 
Scheme  of  Literal  Prophecy,  professed  to  reply  to  the  works 
■which  had  been  written  in  answer  to  his  Grounds  and  Reasons 
of  the  Christian  Religion;  and  Moi’gan,  in  the  latter  part  of  his 
Moral  Philosopher,  professed' to  reply  to  the  answers  which  had 
been  given  to  the  preceding  parts  of  it ;  but  in  both  cases  these 
infidels,  instead  of  making  a  frank  and  manly  attempt  to  grapple 
■with  the  main  substance  of  what  had  been  written  against  them, 
merely  laboured  to  involve  in  doubt  or  obscurity  some  of  the 
collateral  or  subordinate  parts  of  the  argument,  or  tried  to  escape 
by  stating  new  cavils  and  difficulties  on  some  other  topics.  So  it 
has  always  been,  more  or  less,  with  the  advocates  of  error  in 
every  controversy,  down  to  that  which  terminated  in  the 


^TATE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 


147 


Disruption  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland.  They  have 
either  declined  altogether  to  answer  what  was  written  in  defence 
of  truth,  though  they  may  have  continued  to  write  on  the  other 
side,  which  may  be  a  very  different  thing  from  answering ;  or,  if 
they  have  attempted  to  answer,  they  have  commonly  grappled 
only  with  details,  and  have  evaded  the  main  strength  and 
substance  of  the  arguments. 

We  have  admitted  that  the  defenders  of  Christianity  are  bound 
to  take  the  burden  of  proof  in  the  discussion  of  the  validity  of 
its  claims  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  infidels  are  bound  to  state, 
distinctly  and  explicitly,  their  negation  of  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  to  grapple  fairly  and*  fully  with  the  whole  of  the 
direct  and  proper  evidence  which  the  defenders  of  Christianity 
may  adduce.  Those  who  refuse  to  admit  the  claims  of  Christianity 
to  be  received  as  a  revelation  from  God,  must  be  held  to  assert 
and  maintain,  as  the  only  intelligible  explanation  of  their  position, 
that  Jesus  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  gave  no  satisfactory 
evidence  that  they  were  commissioned  by  God,  that  their  claims 
to  divine  authority  were  unfounded ;  or,  in  other  words,  as  they 
unquestionably  advanced  these  claims,  that  they  were  either 
enthusiasts  or  fanatics,  who  believed,  without  ground  and  reason, 
that  they  were  divinely  commissioned  ;  or  else  imposters,  who 
asserted  what  they  knew  to  be  false.  It  is  painful  to  those  who 
regard  Christ  and  his  apostles  with  the  respect  and  reverence  to 
which  they  are  entitled,  to  state  such  a  position,  even  in  the 
explanation  of  an  argument ;  but  if  the  evidences  of  Christianity 
are  to  be  discussed,  we  must  fairly  contemplate  and  describe  the 
case  and  the  position  of  those  who  deny  its  truth  ;  and  we  are 
persuaded  that  it  is  of  some  practical  importance,  in  order  to  our 
rightly  comprehending  this  subject,  and  being  duly  impressed 
with  it,  that  we  should  rightly  conceive  and  fully  realise  what  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  denial,  or  even  in  the  non-admission,  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity.  If  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  not 
divinely  commissioned  teachers,  they  must  have  been  either 
enthusiasts,  who  imposed  upon  themselves,  or  imposters  who 
endeavoured  to  impose  upon  others.  This  is  the  only  alternative, 
and  it  is  right  and  expedient  that  this  consideration  should  be 
ever  remembered  and  realised  when  consideriug  the  subject  of 
the  evidences  of  Christianity,  for  it  contributes  to  preserve  a  right 


148 


E LEY  ENT II  LECTURE. 


impression  of  what  is  the  true  nature  of  the  question  at  issue, 
and  of  the  momentous  results  that  depend  upon  its  decision  ;  and 
it  also  renders  us  some  assistance  in  forming  a  right  estimate 
and  a  just  impression  of  the  force  and  bearing  of  the  different 
arguments  that  may  be  brought  forward  on  both  sides  of  the 
question. 

It  is  peculiarly  important  in  the  present  day  to  keep  this 
distinctly  before  our  minds  as  the  true  and  only  alternative  in 
the  discussion  of  this  subject,  because  the  great  distinguishing 
peculiarity  of  the  infidel  rationalism  or  neology  of  Germany  is, 
that  it  labours  to  overturn  the  whole  foundations  of  the  Christian 
evidence,  and  to  deprive  us  of  all  proof  of  a  direct  supernatural 
revelation  from  God,  without  directly  and  openly  assailing  the 
character  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  without  charging  them  with 
being  either  imposters  or  enthusiasts.  The  conclusion  upon  this 
subject  to  which  their  statements  and  arguments  commonly  point 
is  something  of  this  sort,  that  our  Saviour,  though  not  holding 
any  special  divine  commission,  or  favoured  with  any  peculiar 
supernatural  communications,  was  a  man  of  high  powers  and  of 
great  excellence,  who,  by  the  exercise  of  his  own  talents,  and 
under  ordinary  providential  guidance,  attained  to  and  promulgated 
more  correct  and  enlightened  views  concerning  God  and  duty 
than  previously  prevailed.  He  was  thus  a  great  benefactor  of  the 
human  race,  like  Confucius  or  Socrates,  and  his  instructions  mark 
a  great  era  in  the  development  of  truth,  and  in  the  enlightenment 
of  mankind.  Some  of  them  admit  that  he  spake  and  acted 
occasionally  under  the  influence  of  enthusiasm  or  self-deceit,  and 
that  he  sometimes  practised  a  little  upon  the  ignorance  and 
credulity  of  his  countrymen  ;  while  others  explain  the  facts  and 
statements  upon  which  these  conclusions  are  based  by  the 
supposition  of  his  really  sharing  largely  in  the  ignorance  and 
error  that  prevailed  around  him.  Still,  both  classes  in  general 
profess  great  respect  for  his  character,  and  abjure  the  idea  of  his 
being  an  imposter.  And  hence  the  importance,  in  dealing  with 
these  men,  of  shewing  that,  whatever  they  may  find  it  convenient 
to  profess  or  pretend,  then  fundamental  principles  necessarily 
imply  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  imposters,  putting  forth 
claims  which  they  must  have  known  to  be  false.  And  when  this 
is  established,  German  rationalism  is  fully  identified  with  ordinary 


STATE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 


149 


vulgar  infidelity,  to  be  assailed  and  refuted  on  the  same  obvious 
and  well-known  grounds  by  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  has 
been  usually  demonstrated^ 

In  discussing  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  we  have  to 
deal  in  reality  or  by  supposition  with  men  who  deny  it,  or  at  least 
are  not  yet  persuaded  of  it,  and  who,  of  course,  if  they  have  any 
opinions  or  convictions  upon  the  subject,  believe  that  the  claims 
put  forth  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  unfounded;  and  in 
dealing  with  such  men,  we  must  argue  upon  principles  common  to 
Christians  and  to  unbelievers.  We  must  assume  nothing  which 
they  deny  or  do  not  admit,  without  proving  it,  or  producing 
satisfactory  evidence  of  its  truth.  We  cannot  argue  with  any 
man  unless  he  and  we  have  some  common  principles — some  com¬ 
mon  standard  to  which  we  both  appeal.  The  ultimate  common 
standard  or  first  principle  that  obtains  among  rational  men,  and 
must  be  the  basis  of  all  reasoning,  is  the  sufficiency  or  adequacy 
of  our  natural  powers  and  faculties  for  acquiring  knowledge  or 
ascertaining  truth ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  truth  and  certainty  of 
those  things  which  we  learn  from  the  proper  and  legitimate  use  of 
our  faculties,  from  sense,  and  consciousness,  and  reason.  Those 
who  do  not  admit  this  first  principle  or  common  standard,  are 
unworthy  of  attention  or  argument ;  they  are  beyond  the  reach  of 
reasoning,  and  should  be  at  once  set  aside  as  impudent  propounders 
of  paradoxes  which  they  do  not  themselves  believe,  or  as  destitute 
of  mental  sanity.  When,  however,  this  first  principle  or  ultimate 
common  standard  is  admitted,  we  can  fully  establish,  in  opposition 
to  atheists  and  pantheists,  the  great  doctrines  of  natural  religion 
— the  existence,  character,  and  moral  government  of  God  ;  or  prove 
to  them  satisfactorily  that  they  are  bound  to  admit  these  things 
as  true.  And  it  is  in  this  state  of  matters,  and  with  the  great 
doctrines  of  natural  theology  admitted  or  conceded  on  both  sides, 
that  we  usually  proceed  to  consider  the  question  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity — the  question  whether  or  not  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  indeed  sent  into  the  world  immediately  by  the  great  God, 
who  rules  and  governs  all  things,  and  were  commissioned  by  him 
to  make  known  his  will  to  men.  If  there  be  such  a  being  as  we 
commonly  understand  by  the  name  God,  it  is  surely  possible  that 

^  French’s  translation  of  Tholuck’s  Essay  on  the  Credibility  of  the  Evangelical 
History^  in  reply  to  Strauss’  Life  of  Jesus^  c.  iii.  pp.  50-53. 


150 


ELEVENTH  LECTURE. 


he  may  directly  and  supernaturally  reveal  his  will  to  man  by  the 
instrumentality  of  men.  There  is  nothing  in  this  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  power,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  that  can  be  proved 
to  be  inconsistent  with  anything  which,  without  a  revelation,  we 
know  concerning  the  perfections  of  his  character,  the  principles  of 
his  government,  and  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  us.  Nay, 
from  all  we  know  of  him,  viewed  in  connection  with  the  ordinary 
condition  exhibited  by  men  who  have  not  had  any  supernatural 
revelation  of  his  will,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  he  should 
reveal  himself  to  men,  and  give  them  full  and  authentic  informa¬ 
tion  about  the  path  of  duty  and  the  way  to  happiness.  And 
therefore  the  proper  question  is  this.  Has  he,  in  point  of  fact, 
made  such  a  revelation  of  himself  to  men,  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  men  ?  And  more  particularly.  Did  he  expressly 
commission  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  to  speak  to  men 
in  his  name,  and  to  make  known  to  them  his  will?  Was  this 
done,  and  can  it  be  proved  ?  Christ  and  his  apostles  put  forth  a 
claim  to  this  effect.  Did  they  produce  evidence  of  this  claim 
sufficient  to  establish  it  ?  Has  this  evidence  been  preserved,  and 
is  it  still  sufficient  to  satisfy  us  of  the  truth  of  their  claims  ?  And 
if  so,  what  was  the  information  which  in  God’s  name  and  by  his 
authority  they  communicated.  These  are  great  and  momentous 
questions,  in  regard  to  which  we  should  be  all  able,  not  only  to 
express  a  firm  and  decided  opinion,  but  to  explain  and  unfold, 
when  duly  called  upon,  the  grounds  and  the  reasons  by  which  we 
maintain  and  defend  it. 


LECTURE  XII. 


DIVISIONS  OF  THE  EVIDENCE— MODE  OF  APPEOACHING  THE 
SUBJECT  — GENUINENESS,  AUTHENTICITY,  OE  GENEEAL 
CEEDIBILITY— NECESSITY  OF  SPECIAL  EVIDENCE  FOE 
SPECIAL  CLAIMS  TWOFOLD. 


Before  proceeding  to  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  topics  com¬ 
prehended  under  these  different  heads,  we  must  advert  to 
the  distinction  between  the  evidence  by  which  a  believer  may 
convince  an  unbeliever  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the 
evidence  which  the  believer  himself  has  or  may  have  of  its  truth. 
A  man  who  has  been  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and 
of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  toho  has 
given  'practical  effect  to  this  conviction  by  really  submitting 
his  understanding  and  his  heart  to  the  revelation  there  given 
of  the  will  of  God  for  man's  salvation,  has  evidences  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  and  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  opened 
up  to  him,  which  may  and  should  be,  upon  rational  grounds,  most 
satisfactory  to  himself,  though  they  do  not  possess  the  same  direct 
and  immediate  power  in  convincing,  or  at  least  silencing,  an 
unbeliever.  They  consist  chiefly  in  the  manifestations  of  the 
divine  glory,  majesty,  and  wisdom,  which  he  is  now  enabled  to 
see  in  that  word  which  God  has  magnified  above  all  his  works, 
and  in  the  effects  which,  through  this  word,  have  been  produced 
upon  his  own  mind  and  character.  The  first  of  these  is  usually 
called  “the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible”  —  a  quality 
indeed  which  attaches  to  the  Bible,  and  exists  in  it,  whether  men 
see  it  or  not,  but  which  is  fully  seen  and  perceived  only  by  those 
who,  having  embraced  the  truth,  are  living  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit  of  truth.  The  second  is  what  is  commonly  called  “the 


152 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


witness  of  tlie  Spirit,”  and  may  be  classed  under  the  general  head 
of  the  experimental  evidence.  These  evidences  are  not  only  the 
best  safeguards  to  believers  against  the  assaults  of  infidelity,  but 
they  may  rationally  impress  the  minds  of  unbelievers,  and  we 
have  no  doubt  are  often — perhaps  we  might  say  most  commonly — 
employed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  for  that  purpose;  but  they  are 
distinguished  from  what  are  commonly  reckoned  the  more  direct 
and  proper  proofs  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Bible  by  this,  that  the  unbeliever  may  more 
easily  evade  them ;  that  he  cannot  by  the  use  of  them  be  so 
certainly  driven  into  a  corner,  and  compelled,  in  the  application  of 
strict  reasoning,  based  upon  principles  mutually  held  or  conceded, 
to  assent  to  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  authority  of  its 
records.  These  branches  of  proof  bear  more  upon  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  than  the  general  truth  of  Christianity, 
and  will  therefore  be  afterwards  adverted  to. 

It  has  been  common  for  writers  on  this  subject  to  divide  the 
evidences  of  Christianity  into  different  heads  or  branches.  They 
have  most  commonly  been  classed  under  the  three  divisions  of 
external,  internal,  and  experimental ;  and  this  classification,  though, 
as  Dr  Chalmers  observes  (book  iii.,  chap.  1),  it  is  not  easy  to 
define  very  precisely  at  all  points  the  limits  between  the  different 
departments,  is  convenient  and  useful.  The  external  evidence 
comprehends  everything  that  can  be  adduced  in  support  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  from  the  condition  and  circumstances,  the 
character  and  the  deeds,  of  the  men  who  first  proclaimed  it ;  or, 
in  other  words,  the  proof  which  they  themselves  adduced  and 
exhibited  of  their  being  divinely  commissioned,  as  the  ground  or 
basis  on  which  they  called  upon  those  whom  they  addressed  to 
receive  their  instruction,  and  to  submit  to  their  teaching  and 
directions.  This  proof  consisted  in  the  miracles  wrought  by  them, 
and  in  prophecies  fulfilled  in  them,  or  uttered  by  them  and  after¬ 
wards  fulfilled ;  and,  as  discussed  and  investigated  now,  includes 
of  course  an  examination  of  the  evidence  we  have  for  the  reality 
and  truth  ot  these  alleged  miracles  and  prophecies.  The  internal 
evidence  consists  of  the  proof  that  may  be  derived  from  the  revela¬ 
tion  itself  which  they  professed  to  communicate  in  God’s  name, 
that  it  really  came  from  God,  the  evidence  which  the  Christian 
revelation  contains  within  itself — in  the  discoveries  it  makes,  in 


DIVISIONS  OF  THE  EVIDENCE, 


153 


the  doctrines  it  unfolds,  in  the  character  it  prescribes,  and  the 
duties  it  enjoins — of  its  divine  origin. 

The  experimental  evidence  comprehends  everything  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  derived  from  its 
history  and  actual  results,  from  what  it  has  actually  effected  upon 
the  character  and  condition  of  men,  collectively  and  individually. 
The  evidences  of  Christianity  may  be  all  comprehended  under 
one  or  other  of  these  heads,  and  these  different  divisions  fall 
naturally  to  be  discussed  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  now 
been  stated. 

The  substance  of  what  is  conceded  by  the  opponents  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  conceded  by  them,  as  we  formerly  explained  to  you, 
because  it  could  not  be  denied  without  overturning  the  foundations 
of  all  faith  in  past  events,  is  this,  that  about  1800  years  ago  a 
remarkable  person  appeared  in  Judea,  claiming  to  be  received  as 
a  messenger  from  God,  authorised  to  make  known  his  will ;  that 
he  professed  to  work  miracles  in  support  of  his  claims,  and  was  at 
last  publicly  put  to  death  ;  that  his  immediate  followers  put  forth 
the  same  claims  in  behalf  of  their  master  and  themselves,  asserted 
that  he  was  raised  from  the  dead,  professed  themselves  to  work 
miracles,  endured  the  greatest  hardships,  and  at  last  many  of 
them  suffered  death,  because  of  the  claims  which  they  put  forth ; 
that  many  believed  in  the  validity  of  the  claims  of  the  founder 
of  this  religion  and  his  immediate  followers,  and  endured  perse¬ 
cution  and  death  rather  than  renounce  their  connection  with 
them ;  and  that  the  religion  which  professed  to  rest  upon  this 
basis  was  soon  widely  diffused  over  the  world,  was  received  and 
adopted  by  vast  multitudes,  and  at  length  gained  the  ascendancy 
over  the  Roman  empire.  All  this  is  conceded  as  matter  of  fact 
by  infidels,  because  it  is  either  expressly  asserted  by  heathen  or 
pagan  authors,  such  as  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Pliny,  and  Lucian, 
with  whose  testimony  you  ought  to  be  acquainted,  or  else  is 
necessarily  implied  in  facts  or  events  which  are  notorious  and 
unquestionable.  All  this  being  known  and  admitted,  men  who 
wish  to  investigate  the  validity  of  these  claims,  the  truth  of  this 
religion,  will  naturally  proceed  to  consider  what  means  we  have 
of  acquiring  information  concerning  the  persons  hy  whom^  and 
the  circumstances  in  which,  these  claims  were  advanced,  the 
evidences  by  which  they  were  at  the  time  supported,  and  the 


154 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


reception  they  met  with.  Their  attention  will  then  be  directed 
to  certain  books  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us,  and  are  now 
in  our  possession,  and  which  profess  to  contain  the  records  of 
these  matters  by  the  parties  most  immediately  connected  with 
them,  and  consisting  more  particularly  of  four  different  histories 
of  the  life  of  the  founder  of  this  religion,  of  a  history  of  the 
proceedings  of  his  followers  after  his  death  by  one  who  professed 
to  be  an  eye-witness  of  much  that  he  records,  and  of  a  number  of 
letters  or  epistles  professing  to  be  written  by  some  of  the  earliest 
and  most  active  propagators  of  the  religion.  If  these  books  were 
really  written  by  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  commonly 
ascribed,  whose  names  they  bear,  and  at  the  time  in  which  they 
profess  to  have  been  written,  i.e.  contemporaneously  with  the 
events  they  describe,  they  may  be  expected  to  give  us  important 
information  concerning  the  whole  state  of  matters. 

This  leads  us  at  once  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament,  i.e. 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  these  books,  not  at  present 
adverting  to  them  in  detail  and  individually,  but  in  the  gross, 
were  written  by  the  authors  whose  names  they  bear,  and  at  or 
about  the  time  when  they  profess  to  have  been  written  ;  in  other 
words,  whether  they  were  written  by  the  original  propagators  of 
Christianity,  and  contemporaneously  with  the  events  they  record. 
And  the  first  and  most  obvious  consideration  that  occurs  upon  this 
topic  is,  that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  ground  to  doubt  this — not  a 
vestige  of  reason  for  disputing  the  genuineness  of  these  books. 
There  is  nothing  either  in  the  books  themselves,  or  in  anything  we 
know  concerning  their  history  and  transmission,  that  indicates  a 
later  age,  or  throws  the  least  suspicion  upon  the  idea  that  they 
were  written  by  those  whose  names  they  bear — persons  contem¬ 
porary  with  the  events  they  record,  and  closely  connected  with 
them. 

This  of  itself  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  books, 
for  experience  fully  proves  that  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  forge 
books  which  are  to  pass  as  having  been  written  in  an  earlier 
age — especially  when  the  books  describe  many  ordinary  affairs  and 
historical  transactions ;  and  when  we  have  other  authentic  infor¬ 
mation  about  the  state  of  matters  in  that  age  and  country — with¬ 
out  introducing  into  them  some  materials  by  which. the  forgery 


DIVISIONS  OF  THE  EVIDENCE. 


155 


may  be  detected.  In  almost  every  case  where  there  has  been  any 
reason  to  suspect  that  any  ecclesiastical  writing  had  been  forged 
in  a  later  age  than  that  in  which  its  alleged  author  lived,  or  in 
which  it  is  said  to  have  been  written,  the  forgery  has  been  detected 
and  proved  by  the  discovery,  either  in  the  external  history  of  the 
work,  or  more  frequently  in  its  statements  and  language,  of  what 
clearly  proved  that  it  was  the  production  of  a  later  age.  The  Church 
of  Rome  has  forged  many  pretended  writings  of  fathers  and  decrees 
of  councils  to  support  her  doctrines  and  her  claims  ;  but  the  for¬ 
geries  have  been  detected,  i.e.  it  has  been  established,  generally  by 
internal  evidence,  that  there  were  plain  indications  that  they  were 
written  in  a  later  age  (Comber).  The  strength  of  the  evidence  by 
which  the  forgery  was  proved  varied  considerably  in  different 
instances,  but  in  very  many  cases  it  was  quite  sufficient  to  satisfy 
every  unprejudiced  mind.  And  in  one  remarkable  case — that  of 
the  Decretal  Epistles,  as  they  are  called — the  forgery  has  been  so 
conclusively  established,  that  all  Romanists  of  learning  have  been 
forced  to  admit  it,  though  these  epistles  were  quoted  as  genuine 
for  700  years  before  the  Reformation,  even  by  Popes,  in  support 
of  the  pretensions  of  the  Romish  see.  It  is  useful  to  attend  to 
the  process  by  which  the  forgery  in  these  cases  has  been  proved, 
for  it  strikingly  illustrates,  by  the  contrast,  the  impossibility  of 
proving  that  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament  were 
not  written  by  the  persons,  and  at  the  time  usually  supposed. 

Not  only  has  nothing  that  is  possessed  even  of  plausibility  been 
adduced  against  the  genuineness  of  the  books  that  compose  the 
New  Testament,  although  it  is  scarcely  possible  that,  if  they  had 
been  the  productions  of  a  later  age,  this  would  not  have  been 
detected  and  exposed,  but  much  positive  evidence  has  been 
adduced  from  the  language  and  style  in  which  they  are  composed, 
and  the  minute  and  exact  accordance  between  many  of  their 
statements,  direct  and  incidental,  and  what  we  know  from  other 
sources  of  the  true  state  of  matters  to  which  they  advert  in  that 
age  and  country.  This  is  an  important  department  in  the 
Christian  evidence,  and  goes  to  establish  not  only  the  genuineness 
of  the  books  that  compose  the  New  Testament,  but  also  their 
authenticity,  i.e.  the  general  truth  or  credibility  of  the  narratives 
they  contain.  The  establishment  of  this  position  depends  upon 
the  adduction  of  specific  historical  evidence  in  its  details ;  and 


156 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


with  these  details  you  ought  to  make  yourselves  familiar.  A 
summary  of  them  is  given  in  many  works  on  the  evidences  ;  but 
the  fullest  and  most  complete  collection  of  the  materials  beariug 
upon  this  subject  is  to  be  found  in  the  first  part  of  Lardner’s 
Credibility,  and  in  his  collection  of  Jewish  and  heathen  testi¬ 
monies  ;  while  the  argument  derived  from  the  language  and  style 
is  well  explained  and  illustrated  in  the  second  chapter  of 
Michaelis'  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

But  the  fullest  and  most  direct  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
books  that  compose  the  New  Testament  is  the  recognition  of 
them,  and  the  appeal  to  them  in  a  succession  of  writers,  from  the 
apostolic  age  down  to  the  present  day ;  or,  as  perhaps  it  is  better 
to  put  it,  from  the  present  day  up  to  the  apostolic  age.  This  too 
is  a  very  important  department  of  the  Christian  evidences,  and  is 
dependent  of  course,  like  the  former,  upon  the  details  of  the 
historical  proof  that  can  be  produced  in  support  of  it.  The 
general  principle  upon  which  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof  of 
the  genuineness  of  works  supported  and  attested  in  this  way  rests, 
its  perfect  security,  and  its  entire  accordance  with  the  principles 
on  which  we  estimate  the  genuineness  of  all  other  literary 
productions  which  have  been  handed  down  from  ancient  times, 
are  brought  out  in  a  very  ingenious  and  satisfactory  way  in  two 
valuable  works  of  Mr  Isaac  Taylor,  which  are  well  worthy  of  being 
perused,  entitled  The  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  and  The 
Process  of  Historic  Proof ;  and  the  details  of  the  historical 
evidence  upon  which  the  application  of  these  general  principles 
to  the  establishment  of  the  genuineness  of  the  books  composing 
the  New  Testament  rests,  are  to  be  found  most  fully  and  minutely 
given  in  the  second  part  of  Lardner’s  Credibility,  and  in  the 
supplement  to  it.  A  summary  of  the  historical  proof  upon  this 
point  is  given  in  Paley,  and  in  many  of  the  ordinary  books  upon 
the  evidences.^.  There  is  also  a  very  good  book  on  this  subject 
strongly  recommended  by  Michaelis,  along  with  Lardner — Less  on 
The  Authenticity,  uncorrupted  Preservation,  and  Credibility  of 
the  New  Testament.  This  work  was  translated  from  the  German, 
and  published  in  this  country  above  forty  years  ago,  and  the 
translation  has  again  been  republished  lately.  Lardner  was 

^  Horne’s  Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  73,  referring  to  Archbishop  Marsh’s  Lectures, 
part  ii.,  and  Benson’s  Hulsean  Lectures  for  1820,  pp.  78-84. 


GENUINENESS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  157 


exceedingly  cautious  in  conducting  his  argument,  and  very  careful 
not  to  lay  more  stress  upon  any  quotation  or  reference  than  it 
seemed  fully  qualified,  upon  the  strictest  examination,  to  bear. 
Less,  however,  is  more  scrupulous  and  fastidious  in  this  respect 
even  than  Lardner,  so  that  in  his  hands  the  evidence  may  be 
regarded  as  very  thoroughly  sifted  indeed. 

In  what  precise  respect  is  caution  required  in  this  matter  ? 
The  substance  of  the  matter  is  this,  that  by  a  series  of  quotations 
from,  and  references  to,  the  books  that  compose  the -New  Testa¬ 
ment,  the  facts  recorded  in  them,  and  to  their  principal  contents, 
contained  in  an  unbroken  succession  of  writers  from  the  present 
day  up  to  the  apostolic  age,  we  can  prove  by  evidence  the  same  in 
kind  by  which  the  genuineness  of  other  ancient  books  is  estab¬ 
lished,  but  immeasurably  stronger  in  degree  than  that  in  which 
this  evidence  applies  to  any  other  writing  of  antiquity,  that  these 
books,  substantially  as  we  now  have  them,  existed,  and  were  gene¬ 
rally  known  and  received  as  the  productions  of  the  authors  whose 
names  they  bear,  in  the  age  in  which  the  events  they  describe 
took  place.  Here  again  I  have  to  remind  you  that  it  is  your  duty, 
by  the  perusal  of  the  works  referred  to,  or  other  works  in  which 
this  matter  is  illustrated,  to  make  yourselves  acquainted  with  and 
to  fix  in  your  minds  the  heads  or  substance  of  the  historical  evi¬ 
dence,  consisting  mainly  of  quotations  and  references  by  which 
this  important  proposition  is  established.  The  principles  on  which 
this  mode  of  proving  the  genuineness  of  these  books  proceeds  is 
in  entire  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  and  with 
the  course  adopted  in  regard  to  all  the  other  literary  productions 
of  antiquity,  and  has  been  always  recognised  and  acted  upon. 
With  the  evidence  we  can  adduce  upon  this  point,  the  only  alterna¬ 
tive  to  the  admission  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
composed  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  and  at  the  time  usu¬ 
ally  supposed,  i.e.  cotemporaneously  with  the  events  they  describe, 
is,  that  a  series  of  writers,  in  different  ages  and  countries,  where 
concert  was  impossible,  introduced  into  their  works  a  great  variety 
of  statements,  direct  and  incidental,  for  the  concealed  purpose  of 
persuading  posterity  of  the  existence  and  general  reception  and 
notoriety  of  works  which  had  then  no  existence — a  notion  of  course 
too  absurd  to  be  seriously  entertained.  The  evidence  which  thus 
establishes  the  genuineness  of  the  books  that  compose  the  New 


158 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


Testament  goes  far  also  to  establish  their  authenticity  or  truth,  as 
it  proves  that  they  were  not  only  known  to  be  in  existence,  but 
that  they  were  generally  received  as  true  by  very  many  who  were 
deeply  interested  in  the  subject,  and  had  carefully  examined  it 
from  the  time  when  they  were  given  to  the  world,  and  this  could 
scarcely  have  been  the  case,  unless  they  had  been  in  the  main 
worthy  of  credit. 

We  thus  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  books  that  compose  the 
New  Testament,  or  shew  that  they  were  written,  speaking  gener¬ 
ally  and  in  the  gross — for  we  are  not  at  present  considering,  and 
we  are  in  no  way  called  upon  at  this  stage  of  the  argument  to 
consider,  the  genuineness  of  each  particular  book^ — by  the  persons 
Avhose  names  they  bear,  and  at  the  time  usually  believed ;  in  other 
words,  that  they  were  composed  by  persons  most  closely  connected 
with  the  events  they  describe,  and  given  to  the  world,  or  subjected 
to  the  investigation  of  men  in  the  age  and  country  in  which  the 
events  they  describe  were  alleged  to  have  taken  place. 

Upon  this  ground  we  are  called  upon  to  investigate  these  books 
as  the  most  direct  and  certain  means  of  learning  the  state  of  the 
whole  matters  connected  with  the  claims  which  Christ  and  his 
apostles  put  forth,  the  grounds  on  which  their  claims  were  based, 
and  the  credit  to  which  they  are  entitled.  And  here  the  first 
thing  that  naturally  engages  our  attention  is  the  general  question 
of  the  apparent  credibility  of  the  men,  and  of  their  general  narra¬ 
tive,  leaving  out  of  view,  in  the  first  instance,  these  peculiar 
and  extraordinary  circumstances  on  which  the  validity  of  their 
claims  to  a  divine  commission  more  immediately  depended.  And 
here  again  our  attention  is  directed  to  two  different  points — first, 
to  the  internal  marks  of  truth  and  honesty  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  general  indications  of  integrity  and  veracity 
to  be  found  in  the  representations  which  the  authors  of  these 
books  give  of  themselves,  of  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
placed,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  spoke  and  acted.  This  Dr 
Chalmers  has  fully  discussed  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  second 
book  on  The  External  or  Miraculous  Evidences  for  the  Truth  of 
Christianity.’"  There  comes  in  however,  I  think,  also  at  this 
place  with  propriety  and  logical  order,  and  in  the  natural  following 
cut  of  a  legitimate  train  of  thought,  the  topic  which  Dr  Chalmers 
has  discussed  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  third  book  under  the 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  RECORDS.  159 


general  head  of,  “The  Internal  Evidence  of  Christianity,”  viz.,  “  the 
consistency  of  Scripture  with  itself,  and  with  cotemporary  author¬ 
ship.”  The  consistency  of  the  New  Testament  with  cotemporary 
authorship  has  already  been  adverted  to  as  a  proof  of  its  genuine¬ 
ness  ;  but  it  affords  also  a  proof  of  its  authenticity  or  general  truth 
or  credibility,  in  accordance  with  principles  which  Dr  Chalmers 
has  fully  illustrated.  The  consistency  of  the  New  Testament  with 
itself,  considering  that  it  is  composed  of  a  variety  of  productions 
by  different  authors,  and  that  this  consistency  is  not  merely  the 
absence  of  inconsistency,  but  is  exhibited  in  a  great  number  of 
minute  and  obviously  undesigned  coincidences,  as  is  most  admir¬ 
ably  illustrated  in  Paley’s  Horce  Paulince,  furnishes  also,  upon 
generally  understood  and  admitted  principles,  a  strong  proof  of 
the  credibility  of  its  authors,  and  the  general  truth  of  their  state¬ 
ments.  Now,  these  two  points — viz.,  first,  the  internal  marks  of 
truth  and  honesty  in  the  New  Testament  and  its  authors  ;  and 
second,  its  consistency  with  itself  and  with  cotemporary  authorship 
— are  important  steps  in  the  process  of  proof,  and  require  to  be 
pondered  and  examined,  that  you  may  be  familiar  with  the  facts 
and  the  considerations  on  which  the  argument  derived  from  these 
sources  rests.  On  these  general  grounds  we  would  at  once  receive 
any  ordinary  history  as  authentic,  credible,  true,  unless  the  veracity 
of  the  historians,  or  the  truth  of  their  narratives,  could  be  distinctly 
and  explicitly  overturned  by  clear  and  unanswerable  proof.  It  is 
upon  proof  the  same  in  kind,  though  much  inferior  in  degree,  that 
we  receive  as  authentic  and  true  the  best  and  most  credible  his¬ 
tories  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  ancient  times — the  his¬ 
tories,  for  example,  of  Thucydides  and  Gsesar. 

The  writers  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  fully  and 
personally  conversant  with  the  events  which  they  describe,  or  had 
ready  access  to  the  best  and  most  authentic  information.  They  con¬ 
sist  of  several  different  persons,  describing  the  same  things,  and  their 
accounts  in  regard  to  all  important  matters — for  that  is  all  we  need 
at  present  to  maintain — are  perfectly  consistent  with  themselves  and 
with  each  other.  Their  accounts  were  published  to  the  world,  and 
excited  much  attention,  at  a  time  and  in  circumstances  when  their 
narratives,  if  untrue,  could  have  been  easily  detected  and  exposed. 
There  is,  and  has  been,  no  detection  or  exposure  of  their  false¬ 
hoods,  no  contradiction  of  their  general  substance  by  cotemporary 


160 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


or  subsequent  authors,  but  a  great  deal  that  decidedly  confirms 
their  truth  and  accuracy ;  and  about  the  works,  and  the  whole 
character,  conduct,  and  deportment  of  the  men  and  their  associates 
as  they  appear  in  the  works,  there  is  everything  that  is  generally 
recognised,  upon  the  ground  of  the  common  principles  of  human 
nature,  and  the  testimony  of  all  history  and  experience,  as  indicat¬ 
ing  integrity  and  veracity  in  narrators,  truth  and  accuracy  in 
narratives.  Upon  these  grounds,  credit  would  at  once  be  given  to 
their  narratives,  just  as  we  give  credit  to  other  ancient  histories 
upon  grounds  similar  in  kind,  though  possessed  of  a  much  inferior 
degree  of  strength,  were  it  not  for  the  special  and  peculiar  circum¬ 
stance  that  they  put  forth  claims  to  be  received  as  divinely-com¬ 
missioned  teachers,  and  narrated  miracles  as  having  been  wrought 
by  them  in  attestation  of  their  claims.  Now,  it  may  be  conceded 
that  this  important  peculiarity  renders  necessary  the  production 
of  evidence  in  support  of  the  truth  of  their  statements  stronger 
than  would  be  required  if  they  merely  narrated  to  us  the  ordinary 
history  of  the  period,  like  Josephus  or  Tacitus,  although  I  think 
Dr  Chalmers  has  successfully  shewn  that  infidels  have  demanded, 
and  that  Christians  have  conceded,  the  propriety  of  demanding 
much  more  evidence  than  in  right  reason  is  necessary.  No  more 
evidence  is  necessary  for  establishing  the  genuineness  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  than  for  establishing  that  of  any  other 
ancient  author,  although  we  have  much  more  to  produce,  because 
the  genuineness  of  any  ancient  production  is  just  an  ordinary  his¬ 
torical  fact  about  which  there  is,  and  can  be,  nothing  of  a  peculiar 
character.  But  for  the  authenticity  of  the  books,  or  the  actual 
truth  of  the  narratives  they  contain,  we  do  need  evidence  of  a 
peculiar  kind,  because  the  authors  of  these  books  claimed  to  be 
divinely  commissioned  teachers,  and  professed  to  work  miracles  in 
support  of  their  claims,  and  because  these  books  were  written  for 
the  very  purpose  of  setting  forth  these  claims,  and  the  grounds  on 
which  they  rest,  and  conveying  to  us  the  information  which  they 
professed  to  communicate  in  God’s  name.  But  this  additional 
and  peculiar  evidence  can,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  found 
only  in  a  most  thorough  knowledge  of  the  men,  of  the  circum¬ 
stances  in  which  their  claims  were  advanced,  of  the  proof  they 
adduced  in  support  of  them,  and  of  the  evidence  they  gave  of 
integrity  and  veracity,  both  generally  and  in  this  matter.  The 


CREDIBILITY. 


161 


only  full  and  detailed  information  we  have  upon  these  subjects  is 
derived  from  what  is  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  and  upon 
the  grounds  already  explained,  we  are  fully  entitled  to  rely  upon 
the  general  truth  of  the  narratives  there  contained,  i.e.  the  general 
representation  there  given  of  the  claims  they  advanced,  of  the 
kind  of  proof  they  adduced,  and  of  the  leading  circumstances  of 
their  position.  Upon  this  ground,  i.e.  the  general  truth  of  the 
account  they  give  of  their  situation  and  circumstances,  we  are 
enabled  to  come  near  them,  to  advance  close  up  to  them, 
as  it  were,  to  look  at  them  carefully  and  close  at  hand,  that 
we  may  thus  judge  of  the  integrity  of  their  characters  and 
the  authenticity  of  their  statements  on  those  points  on  which 
the  validity  of  their  claims  more  immediately  depends.  Draw¬ 
ing  near  to  them  then  in  this  way,  and  examining  them  more 
closely,  we  6nd  first  of  all  that  the  claims  which  Jesus  Christ 
put  forth  on  his  own  behalf  during  his  life,  and  which  his  imme¬ 
diate  followers  put  forth  on  his  behalf  after  his  death,  were  two¬ 
fold — first,  more  generally,  that  he  was  commissioned  by  God  to 
make  known  his  will  to  men  ;  and  second,  more  particularly,  that 
he  was  the  Christ,  the  Messiah,  whose  appearance  on  earth  for 
important  purposes  connected  with  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  men  was  understood  to  have  been  foretold  in  the  books 
which  compose  the  Old  Testament.  These  two  claims,  though 
intimately  connected  with  each  other,  are  yet  quite  distinct,  and 
may  be  expected  to  be  made  out  distinctly,  each  by  its  own  appro¬ 
priate  evidence.  The  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  Messiah  pre¬ 
dicted  in  the  Old  Testament  is  perhaps  the  more  important  and 
fundamental  of  the  two,  because  it  is,  in  one  point  of  view,  the 
more  comprehensive,  and  includes  the  other;  for  if  Jesus  can 
indeed  be  proved  by  appropriate  evidence  to  have  been  the  Messiah 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  then  it  follows  at  once  that  he 
was  a  divinely-commissioned  teacher,  authorised  to  speak  in  God’s 
name,  even  though  he  might  have  wrought  no  miracles,  and  given 
no  other  evidence  of  a  divine  commission ;  whereas,  even  if,  on  the 
ground  of  miracles  proved,  he  were  admitted  to  be  a  divinely 
commissioned  teacher,  it  would  not  at  once  follow  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  he  was  the  predicted  Messiah ;  while  if  he  asserted 
that  he  was,  and  could  not  establish  this  position  by  its  own  pecu- 


162 


TWELFTH  LECTURE. 


liar  and  appropriate  evidence,  this  would  throw  serious  doubt  upon 
his  claim  to  be  received  as  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  and 
the  proofs  by  which  that  claim  might  be  supported,  and  thus  leave 
the  whole  matter  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition.  It  was  the 
claim  of  Jesus  to  be  received  as  the  predicted  Messiah  that  his 
immediate  followers  were  chiefly  in  the  habit  of  enforcing.  But 
this  was  partly,  perhaps  chiefly,  because  they  had  principally  to  do 
with  Jews,  who  acknowledged  the  divine  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  who  were  at  this  time  in  expectation  of  the 
Messiah,  whom  they  believed  to  have  been  foretold.  A  previous 
belief  indeed  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
necessary  as  a  foundation  for  establishing  the  argument  from  pro¬ 
phecy.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  prove,  as  can  be  easily  done, 
that  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  existed  before  Jesus  appeared 
on  earth,  and  then  that  they  were  fulfilled  in  him  ;  and  when  this 
is  proved,  then  at  once  the  Messiah  and  also  the  divine  authority 
and  inspiration  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  are  estab¬ 
lished.  These  considerations  tend  to  give  the  argument  from 
prophecy  in  favour  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  peculiar  value  and 
importance ;  and  when  combined  with  the  fact  that  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  this  argument  leads  to  a  close  and  careful  examination  of  a 
large  portion  of  the  sacred  records,  may  be  fairly  regarded  as 
entitling  it  to  at  least  as  large  a  share  of  your  attention  as  the 
argument  from  miracles.  But  as  unbelievers  who  are  not  Jews 
could  scarcely  be  expected  to  attend  with  much  interest  at  the 
beginning  of  the  discussion  to  an  examination  of  the  age  of  the  Old 
Testament  records,  or  to  a  minute  and  careful  investigation  of 
their  meaning,  it  has  been  common  for  the  defenders  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  to  direct  attention  in  the  first  place  to  the  claims  of  Jesus 
to  be  received  generally  as  a  divinely-commissioned  teacher,  and 
to  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  in  support  of  this 
claim. 


LECTURE  XIII. 


MIKACLES -HUME’S  AEGUMENT. 


now  then  return  to  this  point,  that  Jesus  and  his  imme- 
*  ^  diate  followers  professed  to  be  divinely-commissioned 
teachers,  and  to  have  wrought  miracles  in  confirmation  of  this 
claim ;  and  we  have  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  an 
account  of  the  whole  circumstances  in  which  these  claims  were 
put  forth,  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  in  support 
of  them,  and  of  the  effects  of  all  this  upon  the  minds  of  men. 
No  proof  of  the  integrity  and  veracity  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
however  satisfactory  and  conclusive,  would  be  sufficient  to  establish 
their  claims,  had  they  merely  asserted  that  they  were  commis¬ 
sioned  by  God,  without  producing  proofs  of  this  satisfactory  to 
the  minds  of  men.  They  might  have  asserted  that  they  were 
authorised  by  God  to  make  known  his  will  to  men.  There  might 
be  about  their  whole  character,  conduct,  and  deportment,  every 
evidence  of  honesty  and  integrity.  They  might  have  been  tested 
by  the  severest  sufferings  and  persecutions,  inflicted  just  because  of 
their  asserting  this,  and  might  have  expired  in  agonies,  cheerfully 
endured  upon  this  ground,  and  from  which  a  mere  renunciation 
■of  this  claim  would  have  saved  them.  But  this  would  not  have 
been  sufficient.  Those  who  witnessed  all  this,  and  we  who  might 
be  convinced  upon  satisfactory  evidence  that  it  took  place,  would 
be  constrained  indeed  to  admit  the  honesty  and  veracity  of  these 
men,  i.e.  to  admit  that  they  really  believed  that  they  were  com¬ 
missioned  by  God  ;  but  for  anything  that  appears  in  the  case  as 
thus  stated,  we  might  be  warranted  in  believing  that  they  were 
mistaken  in  this  belief,  or  at  least  that  nothing  had  been  proved 
which  laid  any  obligation  upon  us  to  believe  it.  Their  cotem- 
poraries  would  justly  require  something  more  than  their  own 


164 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 


honest  and  assured  conviction  that  God  had  authorised  them, 
some  palpable  proof  of  this,  some  tangible  attestation  to  it,  on 
God’s  part.  And  so  do  we.  And  accordingly  we  find  that  they 
professed  to  work  miracles,  plain  matters  of  fact,  cognisable  by 
the  senses,  and  not  mere  convictions  or  impressions,  and  appealed 
to  them  in  proof  that  they  were  sent  by  God,  and  authorised  to 
speak  in  his  name.  So  that  the  question  comes  to  this.  Did  they 
really  work  miracles,  as  they  alleged  ?  Was  this  proved  ?  And 
have  we  still  satisfactory  evidence  of  it  ?  Now,  they  record  many 
miracles  which  they  professed  to  have  wrought.  They  describe  to 
us  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  performed,  and  they 
make  it  plain  that  their  whole  testimony  virtually  bore,  not 
merely  upon  the  sincerity  of  their  own  conviction  that  God  had 
commissioned  and  instructed  them,  but  upon  the  reality  and 
truth  of  those  outward  and  sensible  miraculous  events  which  they 
tell  us  they  produced,  or  which  are  recorded  to  have  been  produced 
in  connection  with  them. 

But  here  we  are  met  at  the  outset  with  a  preliminary  difficulty, 
which  must  be  removed  out  of  the  way  before  we  can  advance 
any  further.  It  is  the  allegation  on  the  part  of  infidels,  accom¬ 
panied  with  an  offer  and  an  appearance  of  proof,  that  miracles 
cannot  be  proved  ;  that  they  are  incredible  ;  that,  from  the  nature 
and  general  character  of  a  miracle,  there  is  always,  and  in  every 
case,  an  amount  of  proof  or  evidence  against  its  truth  or  reality 
which  cannot  be  overcome  by  any  strength  of  human  testimony. 
This  was  the  substance  of  the  celebrated  infidel  argument  of 
Hume  ;  and  it  is  at  this  point,  I  think,  that  in  following  out  the 
natural  train  of  thought  in  expounding  the  evidences  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  the  consideration  of  the  argument  of  Hume  properly 
comes  in,  although  Dr  Chalmers,  for  reasons  which  he  assigns  in 
his  preface,  and  which  are  not  destitute  of  weight,  has,  after  some 
hesitation  as  he  states,  made  it  the  subject  of  the  first  book  of  his 
Evidences.  Here  therefore  we  must  stop  and  consider  this 
argument,  and  ascertain  distinctly  whether  or  not  it  really  throws 
an  impassable  barrier  in  the  way  of  our  further  progress.  Now, 
the  first  thing  to  be  done  is,  to  form  a  clear  and  distinct  conception 
of  what  the  argument  is,  and  what  are  the  grounds  on  which  it 
rests.  And  in  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  as  this  professes  to 
be,  it  is  but  fair  and  reasonable  that  a  knowledge  of  the  argument 


MIRACLES. 


165 


should  be  derived  from  the  author  of  the  argument  himself — i.e^ 
should  be  acquired  from  a  perusal,  if  you  have  the  opportunity,  of 
Hume’s  Essay  on  Miracles.  This  however  is  not  indispensable,  for 
the  argument  is  sufficiently  distinct  and  intelligible ;  its  meaning 
and  its  grounds  can  be  very  easily  apprehended,  and  there  can  be 
no  doubt  of  the  accuracy  of  the  abstract  of  this  argument,  which 
Dr  Chalmers  quotes  from  Dr  Campbell,  at  p.  70  of  his  first  volume 
on  the  Evidences. 

Having  made  yourselves  familiar  with  the  import  of  Hume’s 
argument,  and  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  you  have  next  to 
consider  whether  or  not  it  can  be  answered,  and  if  so,  in  what  w^ay . 
Now,  as  I  am  at  present  merely  giving  you  an  outline,  or  rather  a 
skeleton,  of  the  general  train  of  thought  by  which  the  truth  of 
Christianity  may  be  established,  with  the  view  of  illustrating  the 
connection  of  the  different  parts  of  the  proof,  and  pointing  out 
where  additional  information  may  be  obtained,  I  do  not  mean  to 
examine  the  argument,  but  shall  reserve  anything  I  may  think  it 
needful  to  say  about  it  till  we  come  to  the  consideration  of  Dr 
Chalmers’s  exposure  of  it.  At  present  then  I  would  only  observe 
that  Dr  Chalmers  deals  with  Hume’s  argument  by  a  different 
process  of  reasoning  from  what  former  writers  on  the  subject  had 
employed,  conceding  to  Hume  one  of  his  fundamental  principles,  that 
our  belief  in  testimony,  our  reliance  upon  the  truth  and  certainty 
of  information  derived  from  the  declarations  of  men,  is  based  upon 
experience  ;  and  although  I  am  persuaded  that  Dr  Chalmers’s 
answer  to  Hume  is  the  best  and  most  conclusive  that  has  been 
given,  the  most  accordant  with  the  dictates  both  of  sound  philo¬ 
sophy  and  common  sense,  yet  you  are  not  to  imagine  that  previous 
w'orks  upon  this  subject  in  answer  to  Hume’s  argument  have  lost 
all  their  value,  so  as  to  be  unworthy  of  your  attention  or  perusal. 
Some  of  them  are  still  well  deserving  of  being  perused  and 
examined,  both  because  it  is  interesting  and  useful  to  see  an 
argument  which  has  been  so  much  boasted  of  by  the  enemies  of 
Christianity,  and  which,  if  valid,  is  so  sweeping  and  decisive  in  its 
character,  examined  in  different  aspects,  and  subjected  to  different 
tests  by  men  of  ability,  and  also  because  Hume’s  Essay  on  Miracles 
contains  some  important  things  connected  with  the  subject  of 
miracles,  besides  the  direct  argument  ])y  which  he  professed  to 
shew  that  they  are  universally  incredible,  or  that  they  can  never 


166 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 


be  proved ;  and  to  an  exposure  of  this  fundamental  point  Dr 
Chalmers  has  wholly  confined  himself.  Dr  Campbell’s  Disserta¬ 
tion  upon  Miracles  is  a  singularly  ingenious  and  effective  work, 
and  well  worthy  of  a  perusal.  There  is  also  much  good  and  useful 
matter  in  Adam’s  Essay  on  Miracles,  the  first  book,  I  believe, 
written  in  answer  to  Hume ;  in  the  19th,  20th,  and  21st  letters  of 
Leland’s  View  of  the  Deistical  Writers  ;  in  Douglas’s  Criterion  of 
Miracles;  and  in  Price’s  upon  the  subject.  By  the 

perusal  of  some  of  these  works,  and  especially  by  the  careful  study 
of  the  first  book  of  Dr  Chalmers’s  Evidences,  you  will,  I  have  no 
doubt,  be  firmly  persuaded  not  only  that  Hume’s  leading  direct 
argument  is  utterly  fallacious  and  sophistical,  although  that  is  the 
main  point,  but  also,  moreover,  that  in  conducting  his  argument, 
he  has  been  frequently  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  mere  quibbling 
and  shuffling  in  the  use  of  language,  and  to  much  disingenuous 
misrepresentation  ;  and  that,  after  all,  he  has  not  been  able  to 
adhere  steadfastly  to  his  position,  but  has  been  constrained  by  the 
force  of  common  sense,  virtually,  perhaps  inadvertently,  to  abandon 
it.  It  is  assumed  now  then  that  Hume’s  argument  has  been 
answered,  i.e.  that  it  has  been  proved  that  he  has  brought  forward 
no  sufficient  evidence  to  convince  us  that  miracles  are  incredible, 
and  cannot  be  proved  by  testimony ;  and  that  it  has,  moreover, 
been  proved — for  this  is  necessary  in  order  to  a  thorough  and 
entire  removal  of  the  barrier  which  his  arguments  would  interpose 
to  our  progress — that  there  may  be  such  testimony — testimony 
so  circumstanced  and  so  guaranteed — as  that  there  has  never  been 
anything  like  an  experience  of  its  deceiving  men,  and  that  we 
wmuld  be  constrained,  by  a  regard  to  right  reason  and  common 
sense,  to  believe  it,  even  when  it  is  adduced  in  support  of  events 
plainly  and  undeniably  miraculous. 

Having  removed  this  barrier  out  of  the  way,  and  having  at  the 
same  time  been  led  in  the  course  of  the  process  to  form,  some 
pretty  clear  and  definite  notion  of  what  a  miracle  is,  and  of  what 
is  the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  necessary  to  establish  its  truth, 
or  rather,  having  been  led  to  form  a  notion  of  a  sort  of  testimony 
that  would  constrain  a  reasonable  man  to  believe  any  fact  or  work, 
however  miraculous,  in  support  of  which  it  might  be  adduced,  we 
now  return  to  consider  the  actual  evidence  we  possess  in  support 
of  the  truth  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  performed  by 


MIRACLES. 


1G7 


Christ  and  his  apostles,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  that 
evidence  be  sufficient  to  establish  them.  Now,  this  evidence  is  in 
substance  just  the  solemn,  deliberate,  consistent  attestation  of  a 
considerable  number  of  men,  whose  general  character  is  unim¬ 
peachable,  who  exhibit  every  mark  of  honesty  and  integrity,  who 
persevered  in  this  attestation  when  called  upon  to  renounce  every 
worldly  comfort,  and  subjected  to  the  severest  sufferings  on 
account  of  their  adherence  to  it,  and  who  at  last  laid  down  their 
lives  in  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  their  attestation.  This  is  the 
general  ground  on  which  we  believe  in  the  truth  of  the  miracles 
alleged  to  have  been  performed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  And 
you  will  observe  that  the  essential  element  in  the  proof  is  the 
evidence  that  they  forfeited  all,  and  suffered  all,  even  death  itself, 
just  because  of  the  attestation  they  gave  to  these  miraculous 
events,  and  did  this  voluntarily,  i.e.  while  they  might  have 
escaped  loss,  suffering,  and  death  by  abandoning  or  retracting  their 
attestation.  And  hence  it  is  that  Paley  sets  forth  as  his  main  and 
fundamental  proposition  in  his  Evidences  the  great  doctrine  “  that 
there  is  satisfactory  evidence,  that  many  professing  to  be  the 
original  witnesses  of  the  Christian  miracles,  passed  their  lives  in 
labours,  dangers,  and  sufferings  voluntarily  undergone  in  attesta¬ 
tion  of  the  accounts  which  they  delivered,  and  solely  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  their  belief  of  those  accounts;  and  that  they  also  submitted, 
from  the  same  motives,  to  new  rules  of  conduct.”  And  hence  too 
it  is  that,  in  establishing  this  fundamental  proposition,  he  labours 
mainly  to  prove — first,  that  they  endured  the  severest  sufferings  in 
attestation  of  their  belief  in  the  accounts  they  gave  ;  and  second, 
that  the  story  for  which  they  suffered  was  in  the  main  the  same 
which  we  now  have.  Of  the  proof  of  the  precise  position  that  they 
voluntarily  endured  severe  and  protracted  suffering  in  attestation 
of  the  truth  of  their  story,  it  is  not  possible  to  give  a  more  clear, 
exact,  or  more  beautiful  and  satisfactory  exposition,  than  is  con¬ 
tained  in  the  first  five  chapters  of  Paley,  and  these  therefore  it  is 
your  imperative  duty  to  peruse  and  examine. 

In  regard  to  his  other  leading  positions  under  this  great  general 
head,  viz. — first,  that  the  story  for  which  they  suffered  was  miracu¬ 
lous,  and  that  it  was  in  the  main  the  story  which  we  now  have, 
which  last  position  he  proves  (first)  from  indirect  considerations, 
and  then  (second)  from  the  authority  of  our  historical  Scriptures, 


168 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE, 


it  may  be  observed  that  they  are  obviously  involved  in  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  genuineness  and  general  credibility  of  the  books 
that  compose  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense,  to  the  extent,  and 
upon  the  grounds  which  were  explained  in  last  lecture,  and  the 
investigation  of  which,  I  think,  properly  and  naturally  precedes 
the  consideration  of  the  apostles’  sufferings  for  their  testimony, 
which  sufferings  constitute  the  foundation  of  that  special  evidence 
for  the  truth  of  their  accounts,  required  by  their  special  position  as 
asserting  that  they  wrought  miracles.  I  think  it  at  once  a  more 
natural  and  a  more  logical  order  to  follow  in  expounding  the 
Christian  evidences  to  begin  with  establishing  the  genuineness  and 
general  credibility  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  so  as  to 
put  them  in  the  first  place  at  least  upon  a  level  with  the  most 
authentic  of  ancient  historians,  and  thus  lay  a  basis  upon  the 
ground  of  which  we  could  have  implicitly  believed  them  had  they 
merely  related  the  ordinary  history  of  the  period,  like  Josephus 
and  Tacitus  (and  of  the  evidence  by  which  this  can  be  done  satis¬ 
factorily,  I  gave  an  outline  in  last  lecture) ;  and  then,  assuming 
this  to  be  true  until  it  be  conclusively  proved  that  they  were  either 
deceivers  or  deceived,  to  make  use  of  the  general  information  thus 
obtained  for  taking  a  nearer  and  closer  view  of  them,  that  we  may 
see  whether  their  testimony  was  of  such  a  kind,  in  itself  and  in  its 
accompaniments,  as  to  warrant  us  in  believing  on  the  strength  of 
it  that  they  wrought  miracles  in  attestation  of  their  claim  to  be 
received  as  divinely  commissioned  teachers.  And  when  we  have 
come  to  this  position,  it  is  evident  that  the  main  points  to  be 
proved  are — first,  that  they  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  the  miracu¬ 
lous  events  they  describe  that  they  could  not  be  deceived  them¬ 
selves  ;  and  second,  that  by  the  sufferings  they  endured  they  gave 
such  proofs  of  their  integrity  and  veracity  in  this  matter  that  we 
may  be  sure  they  were  not  imposters  trying  to  deceive  others. 
Both  these  points  must  be  proved;  but,  when  proved,  they  are 
sufficient  and  satisfactory.  This  is  the  subject  of  Dr  Chalmers’s 
fourth  chapter  of  book  ii.,  which  he  describes  in  general  (p.  175) 
as  an  exhibition  of  the  known  situation  and  history  of  the  authors, 
as  satisfying  proofs  of  the  veracity  with  which  they  delivered  them¬ 
selves.”  In  illustration  at  once  of  the  necessity  and  sufficiency  of 
all  this,  we  may  refer  to  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  per¬ 
formed  by  Vespasian,  as  recorded  in  Tacitus.  This  case  has 


VESPASIAN^S  MIRACLES. 


169 


attracted  a  good  deal  of  notice,  especially  since  it  was  brought  for¬ 
ward  by  Hume  in  his  Essay  on  Miracles,  as  entitled  to  be  put  in 
competition,  in  respect  to  evidence,  with  the  miracles  of  the  NeAv 
Testament.  The  utter  folly  and  dishonesty  of  making  or  insinu¬ 
ating  any  such  comparison  has  been  fully  exposed  by  Campbell 
and  Paley  but  I  refer  to  it  at  present  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  two  or  three  points  of  contrast,  not  so  much  in  the 
actual  proof,  as  in  the  relation  in  which  the  miracles  of  Vespasian 
and  those  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  stand  respectively  to  the  hind 
of  proof  necessary  in  such  cases.  Tacitus  is  a  generally  credible 
historian,  and  therefore  we  believe  upon  his  authority  that  the 
general  scene  which  he  describes  took  place  with  Vespasian  and  a 
lame  and  a  blind  man  in  Alexandria ;  that  some  people  believed 
that  on  that  occasion  these  persons  were  miraculously  cured  by  the 
emperor,  and  that,  as  he  says,  some  who  were  present  (continue 
to)  relate  these  cures  even  at  this  time  (about  thirty  years  after) 
when  there  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  lying."’  We  believe  this 
upon  the  ground  of  the  general  credibility  of  Tacitus  as  a  histo¬ 
rian,  just  as  we  believe,  upon  the  ground  of  the  general  credibility 
of  the  evangelists,  the  general  account  they  give  of  their  position 
and  circumstances.  So  far  they  are  upon  a  level ;  but  now  mark 
the  contrast  in  all  other  respects : — 

1.  Tacitus,  who  records  these  things,  and  from  whose  statement 
alone  we  know  anything  about  them,  does  not  give  his  own 
personal  attestation  to  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  alleged 
miracles.  He  does  not  tell  us  that  he  believed  them,  and  his 
narrative  would  rather  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  he  did  not ; 
whereas  we  have  the  full  and  cordial  conviction  of  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament — men  with  every  appearance  of  honesty  and 
integrity  about  them — that  the  miracles  they  record  really  took 
place. 

2.  We  have  no  account  of  these  alleged  miracles  of  Vespasian 
from  any  persons  who  were  closely  connected  with  the  events 
themselves,  Avho  had  full  opportunity  of  knowing  all  about  them 
and  investigating  them,  who  were  under  some  call  either  of  duty 
or  of  interest  to  make  themselves  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
real  state  of  the  case,  and  whose  detailed  narrative  of  the  circum- 

^  Paley  is  particularly  good,  clear,  brief,  and  comprehensive  (chap.  ii.  under 
prop.  ii.  pp.  204,  205). 


170 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 


stances,  whatever  might  have  been  their  object  in  preparing  it, 
might  have  afforded  materials  for  either  confirming  or  overturning 
the  direct  declarations  which  they  might  make,  and  the  convictions 
they  might  express,  respecting  it ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  the 
New  Testament  miracles,  we  find  that  the  accounts  of  them  come 
from  men  who  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  them  that  they  could 
not  but  be  constrained  to  investigate  them  thoroughly,  and  that 
they  could  not  be  deceived  in  the  result  of  their  investigation, 
while  the  detailed  narratives  which  they  have  given  us  of  them 
contain  nothing  to  invalidate,  but  much  to  confirm  the  truth  of 
their  accounts.  We  are  entitled  to  hear  the  declaration  of  the 
parties,  the  statement  of  the  original  witnesses. 

8.  For  anything  that  appears,  and  supposing  all  to  be  true 
which  has  been  really  recorded  concerning  Vespasian’s  miracles, 
it  is  quite  possible,  nay,  highly  probable,  that  the  whole  affair 
was  a  mere  trick  or  deception  got  up  by  the  officials  of  the  temple, 
and  that  Vespasian  himself  might  or  might  not  be  a  party  to  it. 
There  is  not  only  nothing  in  the  circumstances  to  preclude  this 
supposition,  but  much  to  favour  it ;  and  if  it  were  so,  there  was 
certainly  no  power  or  party  in  Alexandria  that  had  either  the 
inclination  or  the  ability  to  detect  and  proclaim  the  imposture ; 
whereas  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  performed  in 
circumstances  which  are  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  supposition 
of  collusion  or  deception,  and  in  which  there  were  parties  who 
were  both  able  and  willing  at  once  to  have  detected  and  exposed 
imposture. 

4.  We  have  no  adequate  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  those  who 
related  these  miracles.  We  believe,  on  Tacitus’  authority,  that 
some  persons  who  were  present  believed  that  the  lame  and  the 
blind  men  were  miraculously  cured  by  Vespasian,  and  that  they 
continued  to  express  this  opinion  even  after,  in  consequence  of 
the  termination  of  the  Flavian  dynasty,  no  gain  was  to  be  made 
by  lying.  Who  or  what  these  persons  were,  what  was  their 
general  character,  or  what  were  their  circumstances,  what  were 
their  means  and  opportunities  of  investigating  the  matter,  and 
ascertaining  thoroughly  how  it  stood — of  all  this  we  know  nothing ; 
and  for  anything  that  appears,  Tacitus  himself  might  have  no 
personal  or  explicit  knowledge  of  them,  and  yet  it  is  really  on 
their  testimony  that  the  case  rests.  It  is  very  evident  that  some 


VESPASIAN^S  MIRACLES. 


171 


gain  might  be  expected  from  asserting  the  reality  of  these 
miracles  during  the  reigns  of  Vespasian  and  his  two  sons,  Titus 
and  Domitian  ;  and  it  was  not  wonderful  that  men  should  continue 
to  repeat  the  opinion  they  had  formerly  expressed,  even  w^hen  no 
further  gain  could  be  expected,  since  at  the  same  time  no  danger 
or  loss  was  incurred  by  their  testimony.  How  different  this  from 
the  case  of  the  original  narrators  of  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament,  who,  while  they  were  so  situated  that  they  could  not 
be  deceived  in  the  matter,  gave  the  most  conclusive  evidence  of 
their  sincerity  by  lives  of  toil  and  hardship,  and  deaths  of  shame 
and  agony,  voluntarily  endured,  just  because  of  the  testimony 
they  bore  !  If,  after  the  Flavian  dynasty  had  terminated,  Trajan 
had  thought  proper,  for  reasons  of  state,  to  deal  with  those  men 
who  professed  to  believe  in  the  reality  of  Vespasian’s  miracles, 
as  we  know  from  undoubted  authority  that  he  dealt  with  the 
Christians,  i.e.  to  give  them  the  alternative  of  either  retracting 
their  testimony,  or  submitting  to  death  ;  and  if  in  these  circum¬ 
stances,  and  upon  this  ground,  they  had  suffered  death,  then  this 
would  have  made  their  case  parallel  to  that  of  the  apostles,  so  far 
as  the  proof  of  sincerity  is  concerned.  Had  events  of  this  kind 
taken  place,  and  been  transmitted  to  us  in  credible  histories,  then 
we  would  have  admitted  that  the  men  who  were  subjected  to 
such  a  test  and  stood  it  believed  in  the  reality  of  Vespasian’s 
miracles,  although  of  course  it  would  still  remain  a  distinct 
question,  to  be  decided  upon  a  fair  view  of  all  the  circumstances, 
whether  it  was  not  possible,  or  even  probable,  that  they  might 
have  been  mistaken,  and  that  notwithstanding  the  sincerity  of 
their  conviction,  no  real  miracles  had  been  performed  upon  that 
occasion. 

Many  of  the  miracles  performed  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles 
were  such  that  many  men  had  the  fullest  opportunity  of  testing 
their  reality,  so  that  there  was  no  room  for  deception  or  doubt, 
while  the  sufferings  they  endured  because  of  their  testimony 
afforded  satisfactor}^  proof  of  their  sincerity. 

Some  writers  upon  the  evidence  of  Christianity,  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  out  more  distinctly  that  the  apostles  suffered  and  died 
not  merely  in  attestation  of  their  general  conviction  that  they 
were  divinely  commissioned,  but  also  of  the  specific  miraculous 
facts  upon  which  their  conviction  was  based,  have  selected  the 


172 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 


resurrection  of  Christ,  and  have  illustrated  the  way  and  manner 
in  which  the  general  evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  bears 
upon  the  proof  of  that  great  event.  J esus  may  be  said,  in  a  sense, 
to  have  staked  the  truth  of  his  claims  upon  the  fulfilmeut  of  his 
own  prediction  that  he  was  to  be  put  to  death,  and  to  rise  again 
from  the  dead  ;  and  his  immediate  followers  made  the  fact  that  he 
had  risen  again  from  the  dead  the  main  subject  of  their  testimony, 
and  adduced  it  as  the  great  ground  and  reason  of  the  whole 
course  which  they  adopted  in  devoting  themselves  to  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  to  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  and  of  all  the 
hardships  they  endured  in  this  cause.  The  apostle  Paul,  after 
stating  the  full  and  conclusive  evidence  they  had  to  adduce  that 
Christ  had  risen  again,  illustrates  its  importance  by  saying,  “  And 
if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith 
is  also  vain”  (1  Cor.  xv.  14).  And  it  is  well  known  that  the 
primitive  Christians  were  accustomed  to  use,  as  a  brotherly  salu¬ 
tation  on  meeting,  the  word  He  is  risen  again,”  indicating 

that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  basis  of  their  hopes,  tlie 
subject  of  their  daily  and  habitual  contemplation,  and  the  source 
of  their  motives ;  that  they  had  risen  with  Christ  to  newness  of 
life,  and  were  striving  themselves,  and  encouraging  each  other,  to 
set  their  affections  on  things  above.  Now,  of  this  event,  so 
fundamentally  important,  the  defenders  of  Christianity  undertake 
to  prove  the  following  propositions,  and  have  established  them  by 
evidence  which  has  been  often  cavilled  at,  but  cannot  be  success¬ 
fully  assailed : — 1st,  That  the  apostles  who  have  attested  it  could 
not  be  deceived  in  the  matter,  i.e.  that  if  it  were  not  true  that 
their  Master  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  they  must  have  been 
fully  aware  of  this,  or  at  least  fully  aware  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  asserting  it.  2d.  That  they  did  not  act  the  part  of 
deceivers  or  imposters,  declaring  what  they  knew  to  be  false, 
when  they  testified  that  he  had  risen  again,  and  had  been  seen 
of  them ;  and  on  the  proof  of  this  position  of  course  there  bears 
all  the  evidence  we  have  of  their  general  integrity  and  veracity, 
and  especially  that  derived  from  their  forfeiting  every  temporal 
and  worldly  advantage,  and  enduring  every  hardship,  even  death 
itself,  just  because  of  their  testimony  to  its  reality,  and  because  of 
the  course  of  conduct  which  a  conviction  of  its  reality  led  them 
to  adopt.  3d.  That  if  Christ  did  not  indeed  rise  from  the  dead, 


RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


173 


then,  whether  thev  deceived  themselves,  or  laboured  to  deceive 
others  in  asserting  that  he  did,  they  could  not  have  succeeded  in 
convincing  so  many  that  Christ  had  risen.  If  the  story  had  not 
been  true,  its  falsehood  could  easily,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
have  been  detected  and  exposed.  The  whole  power  and  influence 
of  the  world  was  on  the  side  of  their  enemies,  who,  from  the 
success  with  which  the  labours  of  the  apostles  were  soon 
followed,  could  not  possibly  have  overlooked  or  despised  them. 
They  had  no  advantage  for  persuading  men  of  the  truth  of  this 
event,  in  any  of  the  prejudices  or  prepossessions  of  those  to  whom 
they  addressed  themselves ;  they  did  and  they  could  hold  out  to 
them  no  temporal  or  worldly  inducements  to  lead  them  to  believe 
this  ;  they  held  out  nothing  but  the  prospect  of  happiness  in  a 
future  and  unseen  world,  the  hope  of  which  was  based  only  upon 
the  truth  of  Christ’s  resurrection,  of  which  therefore  men  would 
take  good  care  to  satisfy  themselves ;  and  yet  we  find  that,  before 
the  personal  labours  of  the  immediate  witnesses  of  Christ’s  resur¬ 
rection  were  brought  to  a  close,  there  were  many  thousands 
scattered  over  a  considerable  portion  of  the  earth  who  were 
firmly  persuaded  of  its  truth,  who  were  just  as  willing  to  suffer 
death  in  attesting  it  as  the  apostles  themselves  were,  and  many  of 
whom  were  honoured  with  the  crown  of  martyrdom.  This  result 
could  not  have  taken  place  if  Christ’s  resurrection  had  not  been 
true,  and  thoroughly  established  by  satisfactory  evidence.  4th. 
That  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  if  true,  was  a  real  miracle,  which 
could  not  have  been  effected  through  the  ordinary  operation  of 
the  laws  of  nature,  or  by  the  exertion  of  any  human  power ;  and 
when  viewed  in  connection  with  the  circumstances  in  which  it 
took  place,  and  the  use  which  was  made  of  it,  could  be  regarded 
in  no  other  light  than  as  an  attestation  by  at  least  a  superior 
invisible  power  to  the  truth  of  the  claim  which  Jesus  and  his 
apostles  put  forth  to  be  received  as  the  messengers  of  God  [Ditton, 
West,  Sherlock].  The  same  general  process  of  argument  might 
be  applied  to  other  leading  miracles  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  has  been  applied  very  skilfully  and  successfully 
to  the  conversion  of  the  apostle  Paul  by  Lord  Lyttleton,  in  his 
very  valuable  Observations  on  that  important  event.  If  it  be 
proved  satisfactorily  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  or  that  he 
appeared  to  Paul  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  and  called  him  to  the 


174 


THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 


apostleship,  then  there  can  of  course  be  no  difficulty  whatever 
about  any  of  the  miracles,  or  indeed  any  other  matter  of  fact 
whatever,  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
evidence  on  which  they  rest.  They  rest  upon  the  same  evidence, 
and  must  therefore  be  equally  admitted;  while  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  number  and  variety  of  the  miracles  wrought, 
their  character,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  per¬ 
formed,  preclude  the  idea  of  anything  like  either  collusion  or 
mistake. 


LECTURE  XIY. 


EVIDENCE  OF  MIEACLES  STILL  SATISFACTOEY,  JUST  AS  IF 
WE  HAD  WITNESSED  THEM— CONNECTION  BETWEEN 
MIEACLES  AND  DOCTEINE—PEOPHECY— CONCLUSION  OF 
EXTEENAL  EVIDENCES. 

WHEN  we  are  once  convinced,  upon  satisfactory  evidence,  that 
the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  really  took 
place,  that  Christ  wrought  many  miracles  during  his  public 
ministry,  that  he  was  raised  from  the  dead  and  appeared  alive  to 
his  disciples,  and  that  his  immediate  followers,  while  bearing  testi¬ 
mony  to  his  resurrection,  wrought  miracles  in  his  name,  then  we 
are  placed  in  substantially  the  same  situation  as  if  we  had  seen 
these  miracles  ourselves,  and  were  satisfied  of  their  truth  and 
reality  by  the  evidence  of  our  own  senses.  It  is  a  sound  and 
reasonable  principle  that  any  matter  of  fact,  of  the  reality  of  which 
we  would  be  satisfied  upon  the  evidence  of  our  senses,  may  be 
established  by  testimony — and  by  the  way  this  principle,  if  true, 
overturns  the  whole  of  Hume’s  argument,  unless  infidels  were  pre¬ 
pared  to  assert  that  we  could  not  rationally  believe  miracles,  even 
upon  the  evidence  of  the  senses — and  what  we  assert  in  regard  to 
the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  is,  that  they  are  supported  by  testimony  of  such  a  kind 
that  in  right  reason  we  are  just  as  fully  warranted  and  as  impera¬ 
tively  called  upon  to  believe  in  their  truth  and  reality  as  if  they 
had  been  subjected  to  our  own  senses.  Infidels,  besides  asserting 
that  miracles  cannot  be  proved  by  any  testimony,  are  in  the  habit 
of  maintaining  that  the  strength  of  testimony  progressively  dimi¬ 
nishes  in  proportion  to  the  interval  between  the  events  attested 
and  any  subsequent  period  at  which  the  testimony  may  be 


176 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


examined.  And  this  is  the  proper  place,  in  the  progress  of  the 
argument,  for  examining  this  allegation,  though  indeed  it  scarcely 
needs  or  deserves  examination.  It  is  a  mere  vague  generality, 
which  is  plausible  in  sound,  but  cannot  stand  investigation.  Its 
futilit}",  as  applicable  to  the  matter  before  us,  is  established  by 
proving  conclusively  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  shewing  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  uncor¬ 
rupted  and  unmutilated — in  other  words,  by  proving  that  we  have 
just  as  good,  and  indeed  precisely  the  same,  means  of  knowing 
what  testimony  the  apostles  gave,  in  what  circumstances  they 
gave  it,  and  by  what  evidence  they  supported  it,  as  have  been 
enjoyed  in  any  previous  century  up  till  the  time  when  men  could 
no  longer  have  personal  intercourse  with  the  apostles,  or  with 
those  who  witnessed  the  miracles.’ 

We  assume  then  that  we  have  now,  just  as  the  Church  has 
had  in  every  intervening  age,  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  truth 
and  reality  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles ;  and  we  draw  from  this  the  inference  that 
we  should  regard  ourselves  as  placed  in  the  same  situation  as  if 
we  had  witnessed  them.  This  being  supposed  and  realised,  the 
question  then  occurs,  What  conclusions  do  we  draw  from  these 
miracles,  with  reference  to  the  claims  which  those  who  performed 
them  put  forth  to  be  received  as  divinely-commissioned  teachers  ? 
Do  these  miracles  really  afford  satisfactory  evidence  that  God 
sent  them  into  the  world,  and  authorised  them  to  make  known 
his  will  to  men,  so  that  we  are  bound  at  once  to  receive  what 
they  declared  as  resting  upon  God’s  authority  ?  This  leads  to  the 
consideration  of  a  very  important  subject,  and  one  not  altogether 
free  from  difficulty,  although  the  difficulty  lies  much  more  in 
the  abstract  principles  that  may  be  brought  into  discussion  in 
connection  with  it  than  in  the  more  direct  and  practical  point  of 
actually  deducing  from  the  truth  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  a  satisfactory  argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
This  subject  is  the  connection  between  the  truth  of  a  miracle 
and  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  in  support  of  which  it  is  performed.” 

It  seems  very  plainly  taught  in  Scripture  that  both  Christ  and 
his  apostles  appealed  to  their  miracles  in  support  of  their  divine 

^  Dr  Gregory’s  Letters,  quoted  in  Forne,  who  also  refers  to  Benson’s  Hulsean 
Lectures  for  1820,  pp.  70-98  (Horne,  i.  p.  233^. 


MIRACLES. 


1  i  i 

commission,  and  the  consequent  truth  of  the  doctrines  they 
taught.  But  this  has  not  been  admitted  even  by  all  who  profess 
to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  It  was  main¬ 
tained  by  Collins,  the  well-known  infidel,  that  Christ  and  his 
followers  appealed  only  to  prophecy  in  support  of  their  claims, 
and  after  trying  to  establish  this,  he  made  it  his  principal  business 
to  shew  that  prophecy  afforded  no  rational  and  certain  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  Christ’s  Messiahship.  The  infidel  rationalists  or 
anti-supernaturalists  of  Germany — who  being,  many  of  them, 
ministers  and  professors  of  theology,  profess  to  believe  in  a  certain 
sense  in  revelation,  Christianity,  and  the  Bible,  while  in  truth 
they  should  ever  be  regarded  and  treated  as  infidels — as  they 
generally  deny  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  ever  performed  any 
miracles,  deny  that  they  ever  appealed  to  anything  of  this  sort 
in  support  of  their  claims,  and  they  endeavour  to  establish  this 
by  perverting  the  plain  statements  of  Scripture.  Accordingly,  in 
the  more  orthodox  works  published  in  Germany,  you  frequently 
find  a  formal  proof  of  the  position  that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
appealed  to  their  miracles  in  support  of  their  claims,  and  an 
exposure  of  the  attempts  of  the  infidel  rationalists  to  pervert  the 
meaning  of  these  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  this  position  is 
so  clearly  established.^  I  would  have  liked  to  have  devoted  an 
hour  to  reading  and  examining  these  passages,  but  time  forbids 
it.  We  may  possibly  return  to  it.  The  only  question  that  now 
remains  is  this.  Was  this  appeal  which  they  made  to  miracles  in 
support  of  their  claims  well  founded  ?  Did  these  miracles  really 
afford  a  proof  that  they  were  commissioned  by  God,  and  that 
their  doctrine  was  true  ?  A  miracle  witnessed  or  proved  neces¬ 
sarily  implies,  and  of  course  proves,  the  existence  and  present 
operation  of  some  superior  invisible  intelligence,  and  does  not 
seem  directly  and  of  itself  necessarily  to  prove  more.  A  question 
has  been  agitated  upon  this  subject,  viz.,  whether  it  can  be  proved 
from  reason  and  Scripture  that  God  alone  can  work  miracles,  or 
whether  it  is  not  possible  that  what  appear  as  miracles  to  us  may 
be  effected  by  inferior  beings  ?  I  have  said  from  reason  or 
Scripture,  because  many  authors,  when  they  come  to  this  question, 
refer  to  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  Scripture,^  although  this  is 

’  Storr  and  Flatt’s  Biblical  Theology,  p.  19  ;  Knapp’s  Lectures. 

2  Egyptian  Magicians  and  Demoniacal  Possessions. 


M 


178 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


scarcely  suitable  to  the  present  stage  of  the  argument,  when  we 
are  still  engaged  in  establishing  the  claims  of  Christianity  against 
infidels. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  informations  of  reason  or  the  doctrines 
of  natural  theology  to  prove  that  there  are  not  beings  inferior  to 
God  who  may  be  able  to  perform  miracles  ;  but  neither,  on  the 
other  hand,  does  natural  theology  give  any  positive  information 
about  the  existence  and  powers  of  such  beings  ;  while  it  plainly 
enough  teaches  that  miracles  cannot,  any  more  than  ordinary 
events,  take  place  without  the  appointment  or  permission  of  Him 
who  alone  governs  the  world,  and  who  has  all  beings  and  all  influ¬ 
ences  under  his  control ;  that  he  will  neither  produce  nor  permit 
such  events  as  are  fitted  to  lead  his  rational  creatures  into  error 
concerning  himself  and  his  will,  and  that  he  will  assuredly  give 
to  all  who  sincerely  desire  to  know  the  truth,  and  use  their 
faculties  aright,  sufficient  means  of  preserving  themselves  from 
error,  even  though  other  beings  inferior  to  him,  but  superior  to 
men,  should  be  permitted  to  attempt  to  deceive  them,  or  to  lead 
them  to  believe  that  God  had  made  a  revelation  of  his  will  when 
he  had  not.  I  must  remember,  however,  that  I  am  not  to  discuss 
this  subject  at  present,  but  merely  to  indicate  its  general  nature, 
and  the  place  it  occupies  in  the  general  train  of  reasoning  by 
which  the  truth  of  Christianity  may  be  established,  reserving  any 
additional  observations  concerning  it  till  we  come  to  consider  the 
last  chapter  of  the  second  book  of  Dr  Chalmers’s  Evidences,  where 
this  subject  is  discussed.  I  believe,  as  he  does,  though  it  is  a 
point  on  which  the  writers  on  Christian  evidences  are  not  by  any 
means  unanimous,  that  some  reference  to  the  general  character  of 
the  doctrines  taught,  and  of  the  scheme  or  objects  contemplated 
by  those  who  work  miracles,  is  necessary,  in  order  to  our  having  a 
well-grounded  assurance  that  they  were  commissioned  by  God,  and 
authorised  to  speak  in  his  name.  But  then  it  can  be  easily  proved 
that  whatever  of  this  sort  may  be  necessary  upon  any  theory,  fully 
and  clearly  attaches  to  the  miracles  performed  by  Christ  and  his 
followers,  and  thus  it  can  be  conclusively  established  that  those 
who  saw  their  miracles  and  heard  their  instructions — and  of 
course  we  who,  as  has  been  shewn,  are,  by  the  proofs  we  have  of 
the  truth  of  the  miracles,  and  the  knowledge  we  possess  of  their 
doctrine,  placed  in  siffistantially  the  same  situation  as  if  we  had 


MIRACLES. 


179 


seen  and  heard  them — have  abundant  ground  to  believe  assuredly 
that  God  sent  them  into  the  w^orld  to  make  known  his  will,  and 
that  therefore  we  are  bound  to  receive  whatever  it  can  be  shewn 
they  declared  or  enjoined,  as  resting  upon  the  authority  of  God 
himself. 

The  reference  to  the  general  character  of  the  doctrine  and  of 
the  system  in  connection  with  which  miracles  are  wrought,  which 
may  be  necessary  in  order  to  give  validity  to  the  argument  from 
miracles  in  proof  of  an  immediate  and  supernatural  revelation 
from  God,  naturally  paves  the  way  for  the  consideration  of  the 
internal  evidence,  or  the  evidence  derived  from  the  character  and 
substance  of  the  revelation  itself ;  in  other  w^ords,  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  question,  whether  or  not  there  be,  in  the  general 
character  and  in  the  specific  features  of  the  system  of  doctrine  and 
morality  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  anything  which  of 
itself  proves  that  they  did  reveal  God’s  will,  and  were  specially 
authorised  by  him  to  do  so.  But  there  is  another  point  to  which 
Ave  must  again  advert  before  proceeding  to  give  a  brief  outline  of 
this  subject.  We  formerly  explained  the  double  claim  which 
Christ  and  his  followers  put  forth  on  his  behalf — first,  that  he  was 
a  teacher  sent  from  God ;  and  second,  that  he  was  the  Messiah 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  prophecies ;  or,  as  it  has  been 
sometimes  expressed — first, that  he  was  a  prophet;  second,  that  he 
was  the  prophet ;  and  we  have  made  some  observations  on  the 
relation  in  which  these  two  claims  stand  to  each  other.  They  are 
distinct  claims,  and  they  are  co-ordinate  with  each  other ;  i.e.  each 
stands  upon  its  own  proper  footing,  and  must  be  substantiated  by 
its  own  peculiar  and  appropriate  evidence.  The  appropriate 
evidence  of  a  claim  to  be  received  as  a  divinely  commissioned 
teacher  is  miracles — results  cognisable  by  the  senses,  which  could 
not  be  effected  by  human  power,  and  which  could  not  take  place 
without  the  immediate  agency,  or  at  least  the  explicit  permission, 
of  Him  who  rules  the  world. 

In  the  nature  of  the  proposition  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  there  is  necessarily 
involved  the  idea  that  the  proper  proof  of  it  must  be  derived 
from  a  comparison  of  Old  Testament  statements  with  his  life  and 
history,  from  shewing  that  predictions  are  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  were  fulfilled  in  him.  A  prediction  of  a  future 


180 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


event  is  a  miracle,  and  whenever  an  event  occurs  which  can  be 
proved  to  have  been  predicted,  while  yet  it  can  be  shewn  that  it 
could  not  have  been  foreseen  by  any  mere  human  sagacity,  then 
we  are  warranted  to  say  that  in  this  matter  a  miracle  has  been 
wrought,  and  we  are  entitled  to  bring  to  bear  upon  it  all  these 
general  principles,  and  to  draw  from  it  all  those  inferences,  which 
miracles,  in  the  more  ordinary  and  familiar  sense  of  the  word, 
sanction.  If  then  it  can  be  proved  that  Christ  was  plainly  fore¬ 
told  in  the  Old  Testament,  then  this,  as  a  miracle  or  series  of 
miracles  wrought  in  manifest  and  intended  connection  with  him, 
proves  him  to  have  been  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher  ;  while, 
as  the  fulfilment  in  him  of  prophecies  concerning  one  who  was  to 
come  in  God’s  name  to  make  known  his  will  and  to  accomplish  his 
purposes,  it  proves  him  to  be  the  Christ,  or  the  predicted  Messiah. 
Whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  the  proof  by  miracles  that  he  was  a 
divinely  commissioned  teacher,  does  not  of  itself,  and  i^so  facto, 
prove  him  to  have  been  the  Christ.  It  may  indeed  be  said  that  if 
he  is  proved  to  be  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  we  must 
believe  on  his  authority  whatever  he  asserts  concerning  himself, 
and  thus,  since  he  asserted  it,  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  This  is 
true  abstractly ;  but  still,  since  the  proposition  that  he  was  the 
Messiah  admits,  from  its  nature,  of  being  proved  by  its  own 
direct  and  appropriate  evidence,  the  matter  would  stand  in  a  some¬ 
what  awkward  predicament  if  we  could  not  prove  it  by  a  com¬ 
parison  of  the  Old  Testament  statements  with  his  history,  and 
could  establish  it  only  in  the  indirect  and  round-about  way  of 
first  proving  that  he  was  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  and 
that  all  his  statements  are  to  be  received  as  true ;  and  second, 
that  he  asserted  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  therefore  this 
was  true. 

I  cannot  see  that  there  is  any  proper  sense  in  which  prophecy 
can  be  rightly  represented,  as  Dr  Paley  has  done,  as  one  of  the 
auxiliary  evidences  of  Christianity.  It  does  not  go  to  confirm  or 
build  up  the  evidence  of  miracles.  The  proof  from  miracles  would 
be  just  as  strong  as  it  is,  if  there  was  no  evidence  from  prophecy, 
and  no  claim  to  Messiahship.  Prophecy  is  either  a  direct  and 
fundamental  evidence,  going  explicitly,  and  of  itself,  to  prove  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  or  it  is  no  evidence  at  all.  If  there  be  such 
vagueness  or  obscurity  in  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  as 


PROPHECIES  CONCERNING  THE  MESSIAH. 


181 


to  render  their  application  to  Christ  doubtful  without  a  previous 
proof  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  did  not,  and  could  not,  err  in 
interpreting  them,  then  prophecy,  properly  speaking,  does  not  of 
itself  afford  a  proof,  but  only  a  presumption,  in  favour  of  his  claims. 
Whereas  if,  from  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Old  Testament  statements,  it  can  be  proved  that  they 
contain  many  predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  Christ,  then  here 
is  a  direct,  fundamental,  independent  proof,  of  the  truth  of  his 
claims,  not  auxiliary  to  the  argument  from  miracles,  or  to  any 
other  argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  complete  in 
itself,  and  resting  upon  its  own  proper  and  independent  basis. 

We  have  not  here  to  do  with  the  general  subject  of  prophecy, 
or  with  the  general  principles  applicable  to  the  interpretation  of 
it,  but  merely  with  the  question,  whether  there  be  such  predictions 
in  the  Old  Testament  as,  being  falfilled  in  Jesus  and  his  history, 
prove  him  to  be  a  divinely  commissioned  messenger  of  God.  There 
are  many  predictions  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  which  can 
be  proved  to  have  been  fulfilled,  and  to  be  now  fulfilling,  but 
which  had  not  their  fulfilment  in  the  life  and  history  of  Christ. 
They  were  fulfilled,  and  are  fulfilling,  in  the  history  of  the  Jews 
and  other  nations,  of  Nineveh,  Babylon,  Tyre,  &c.  These  predic¬ 
tions  fulfilled,  prove  that  the  men  who  uttered  them  were 
instructed  and  inspired  by  God,  and  thus  go  to  establish  the 
divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  this 
applies  to  all  predictions  fulfilled.  But  they  do  not  directly 
establish  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  To  establish  this,  we  must 
shew  that  there  are  in  the  Old  Testament  predictions  of  some  one 
who  was  afterwards  to  appear  on  earth  to  reveal  God’s  will  and  to 
accomplish  his  purposes,  and  that  these  predictions  were  fulfilled 
in  our  Saviour.  This  argument  may  be  addressed  either  to  J ews 
or  to  men  who  admit  the  divine  authority  neither  of  the  Old  nor 
of  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  conditions  of  the  argument  varv 
somewhat,  according  as  it  is  addressed  to  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  classes.  The  Jews  admit  (1)  that  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  existed  long  before  our  Saviour  appeared  on  earth ; 
(2)  that  they  proceeded  from  God,  and  therefore  have  all  a 
meaning  and  an  object ;  and  (3)  that  they  distinctly  point  to  one 
who  was  to  come — to  a  great  and  exalted  being,  who  was  to  be 
employed  by  God  in  accomplishing  his  purposes.  Infidels  do  not 


182 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


admit  these  positions ;  and  therefore,  in  dealing  with  them,  they 
must  be  proved.  We  prove  that  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
existed  long  before  the  appearance  of  our  Saviour,  by  the  same 
kind  of  evidence  by  which  we  establish  the  genuineness  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament ;  evidence  external  and  internal,  the 
language  and  contents,  concurrence  with  general  history,  versions, 
quotations,  and  references,  and  especially  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Jews  themselves.  Infidels  are  not  bound  by  their  principles,  as 
J ews  are,  to  admit  that  there  is  a  real  meaning  in  all  the  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament.  In  discussing  the  meaning  of  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  with  a  J ew,  in  order  to  shew  that  they  contain 
predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  we  argue  upon  the 
assumption,  which  he  admits,  that  they  were  inspired  by  God, 
that  they  have  a  meaning,  and  were  intended  to  predict  some¬ 
thing.  And  these  admissions  are  sometimes  of  importance  in 
investigating  some  of  the  more  obscure  prophecies.  For  when  we 
have  endeavoured  to  establish  the  true  meaning  of  a  prediction  in 
the  Old  Testament,  we  are  entitled  to  insist  that  the  Jew,  who 
may  object  to  our  interpretation,  shall  give  an  interpretation  of 
his  own,  and  then  the  question  is  virtually  reduced  to  this, 
whether  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  interpretations  is  the  right 
one ;  whereas  all  that  can  be  logically  expected  from  an  infidel  is 
merely  to  prove  that  our  interpretation  is  not  correct,  or  is  not 
fully  established.  He  is  not  bound  to  admit  that  the  passage  has 
any  meaning,  except  in  so  far  as'  we  can  succeed  in  establishing 
that  this  is  the  meaning ;  and  would  probably  not  scruple  to  say, 
as  indeed  infidels  have  often  said,  that  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  so  obscure  as  to  be  unintelligible,  and  that  it  is 
impossible  to  bring  any  clear  and  definite  meaning  out  of  them. 
I  mention  this  because  it  is  right  that  you  should  distinctly 
understand  the  conditions  and  difficulties  of  the  argument,  when 
you  undertake  to  prove  that  there  exist  in  the  Old  Testament 
predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  our  Saviour,  and  thus  prove 
him  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  because  in  the  great  controversy 
which  took  place  in  England  in  the  early  part  of  last  century  on 
the  subject  of  the  nature,  certainty,  and  grounds  of  the  argument 
from  prophecy  occasioned  by  the  publication  of  Collins’  infidel 
work  on  The  Grounds  and  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
some  of  the  less  careful  and  discriminating  of  his  opponents  over- 


PROPHECIES  CONCERNING  THE  MESSIAH. 


183 


looked  this  distinction,  and  thus  gave  him  an  excuse  for  triumphing 
over  them,  of  which  he  was  not  slow  to  take  advantage.  It  is  but 
an  extension  of  the  same  idea  to  notice  that  in  arguing  from 
prophecy  with  a  Jew,  we  have  the  advantage  of  his  conceding  to 
us  that  the  subject  of  many  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
one  great  being  who  was  to  come,  and  when  he  came,  to  contribute 
greatly  to  the  accomplishment  of  God’s  purposes ; — an  admission 
which  affords  a  key  to  the  meaning  of  many  of  them,  and  narrows 
and  facilitates  greatly  the  discussion  concerning  their  application 
to  Jesus,  and  their  fulfilment  in  him  ;  whereas,  in  arguing  from 
prophecy  with  an  infidel,  this  must  be  proved  from  an  examination 
of  the  prophecies  themselves  before  we  are  entitled  to  assume  it. 

The  common  allegations  of  infidels  in  regard  to  the  argument 
from  prophecy  in  support  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  the 
consequent  truth  of  his  religion,  are : — 1st.  That  the  prophecies 
are  so  obscure,  confused,  and  perplexed,  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
extract  from  them  any  clear,  definite,  and  intelligible  meaning. 
2d.  That  if  there  be  some  of  them  which  contain  statements 
similar  to  what  is  found  in  the  life  and  history  of  Jesus,  yet  the 
resemblance  may  be  accounted  for  in  other  ways — by  chance  or 
accident,  or  by  design  on  the  part  of  Jesus  and  his  followers,  and 
at  any  rate  is  much  too  vague  and  indefinite  to  require  us  to  have 
recourse  to  the  supposition  of  a  supernatural  inspired  prediction. 
Now,  you  must  observe  that  these  allegations  are  brought  forward 
in  reply  to  the  adduction  of  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  defenders  of  Christianity,  in  which  they  profess  to  have  found 
clear  predictions  of  events  and  circumstances  which  were  fulfilled 
in  the  life  and  history  of  Jesus  ;  and  these  allegations  of  infidels 
are  to  be  answered,  not  by  abstract  reasonings — although  it  is 
right  to  explain,  as  can  be  easily  done,  the  reasons  why  it  was 
right,  and  might  have  been  expected,  that  some  degree  of  obscurity 
would  attach  to  prophecies — but  just  by  a  re-adduction  and 
re-examination  of  the  passages,  by  a  solution  of  the  doubts  which 
infidels  may  have  tried  to  raise  about  the  meaning  of  particular 
predictions,  the  obscurity  they  may  have  attempted  to  throw  over 
them ;  and  thus,  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  prophecies 
themselves,  by  an  exact  investigation  of  their  meaning,  and  a 
careful  comparison  of  them  with  their  alleged  fulfilment  in  the 
life  and  history  of  Jesus,  and  in  many  things  about  him,  which 


184 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


could  not  have  been  brought  about  by  the  contrivance  of  himself 
and  his  followers,  establishing  the  conclusion  that  there  is  in 
the  Old  Testament  a  series  of  statements,  exhibiting  indeed 
different  degrees  of  clearness  and  explicitness,  but  yet  sufficiently 
clear  and  explicit  to  prove,  when  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
life  and  history  of  Jesus,  that  the  leading  events  in  that  life  and 
history  were  foretold,  and  that  he  therefore  was  the  subject  of 
special  divine  communications,  that  he  possesses  all  the  character 
and  qualities  which  in  the  Old  Testament  are  ascribed  to  him 
who  was  to  come,  and  may  consequently  be  implicitly  trusted  as 
an  authorised  revealer  of  God’s  will. 

Everything,  therefore,  depends  in  this  matter  upon  ascertaining 
the  true  meaning  of  particular  predictions,  and  shewing  that  there 
is  such  a  definite  correspondence  between  their  meaning  and 
import  as  they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  events  in  the 
life  and  history  of  Christ,  as  to  preclude  the  idea  of  any  other 
explanation  than  that  there  was  a  supernatural  prediction,  and 
it  was  fulfilled  in  Jesus.  And  hence,  as  we  formerly  remarked, 
arises  one  important  advantage  of  studying  fully  the  argument 
from  prophecy,  that  it  leads  to  a  careful  and  exact  investigation  of 
the  meaning  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  inspired  word  of 
God,  and  that  thus,  by  one  and  the  same  process,  we  obtain 
abundant  materials  for  establishing  the  divine  authority  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  and  also  acquire  much  knowledge  of  their 
contents,  or  of  the  revelation  which  they  make  to  us  of  the 
divine  will. 

It  would  tend  to  involve  in  serious  doubt  the  whole  argument 

O 

from  prophecy  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  unless  we  could 
point  out  in  the  Old  Testament  single  and  distinct  predictions 
which,  in  their  literal  and  exact  meaning,  critically  ascertained, 
did  apply  to  Jesus,  and  were  fulfilled  in  him;  and  it  is  most  satis¬ 
factory  that  there  are  not  a  few  predictions  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament  which,  when  taken  singly,  each  by  itself,  can  be  proved, 
after  the  most  careful  examination  of  their  meaning,  to  have 
been  real  predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  our  Saviour.  But 
still  the  strength  and  impression  of  the  argument  from  prophecy 
depend  very  materially  upon  the  proof  that  can  be  adduced  from 
the  Old  Testament  of  a  series  of  predictions,  commencing  verv 
near  the  origin  of  our  race,  and  extending  over  several  thousand 


PROPHECIES  CONCERNING  THE  MESSIAH. 


185 


years,  all  consistent  with  each  other,  but  increasing  gradually  in 
clearness  and  explicitness,  plainly  pointing,  individually  and 
collectively,  to  some  great  person  whom  God  was  to  send  into  the 
world  for  the  accomplishment  of  most  important  purposes,  and  all 
at  length,  in  their  general  features  and  in  their  detailed  parti¬ 
culars,  finding  an  exact  and  perfect  accomplishment  in  the  life 
and  history,  in  the  miracles  and  sufferings,  in  the  death  and 
resurrection,  of  him  who  came  in  God’s  name  to  seek  and  to  save 
lost  sinners,  in  the  scheme  of  mercy  which  he  has  unfolded,  in 
the  blessings  which  he  has  purchased,  and  in  the  power  and 
glory  to  which  he  has  been  exalted.  This  is  well  expressed  in 
the  Preface  (p.  v.)  to  Bishop  Sherlock  on  The  Use  and  Intent  of 
Projphecy,  which,  though  not  by  any  means  a  complete  work  on 
this  subject,  contains  some  excellent  materials  for  carrying  out 
this  idea.  The  meaning  of  all  these  prophecies  in  which  the 
defenders  of  Christianity  have  found  proofs  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  him,  is  of  course  con¬ 
troverted  by  the  Jews,  who  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  these 
predictions,  which  in  their  natural  and  obvious  meaning  seem 
plainly  to  apply  to  Jesus,  are  not  correctly  interpreted,  and  also 
that  there  are  predictions  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
intended  to  apply  to  the  Messiah,  which  were  not  fulfilled  in  our 
Saviour. 

This  subject  can  be  investigated  only  by  an  examination  into 
the  details  of  the  meaning  and  application  of  particular  passages, 
and  some  of  the  best  books  for  assisting  you  in  the  study  of  this 
subject  are  Leslie’s  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Jews; 
Bishop  Kidder’s  Demonstration  of  the  Messiah;  Limborch’s 
Arnica  Collatio  cum  Erudito  Jud^ceo,  a  work  in  which  the 
objections  of  this  learned  Jew  are  given  at  full  length  and 
answered ;  and  Huet’s  Demonstratio  Evangelica,  which  contains 
about  as  full  and  minute  an  exhibition  of  the  predictions  con¬ 
cerning  the  Messiah,  and  of  their  fulfilment  in  Christ,  as  probably 
any  one  book  that  could  be  mentioned.  Infidels  who  were  not 
Jews  have  generally  contented  themselves  with  trying  to  involve 
the  subject  of  prophetical  interpretation  and  proof  in  mist  and 
obscurity,  without  entering  much  into  critical  details  as  to  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  prophecies,  probably  because  few,  if  any, 
of  them  had  ever  taken  the  trouble  to  acquire  the  requisite 


186 


FOURTEENTH  LECTURE. 


knowledge  of  Hebrew  for  discussing  them.  This  defect,  however,  on 
the  part  of  the  older  infidels,  has  been  abundantly  supplied  of 
late  by  the  infidel  rationalists  of  Germany,  many  of  whom, 
comprising  undoubtedly  some  of  the  most  learned  Hebraists  of 
the  age,  have  laboured  zealously  to  prove  that  there  are  no 
predictions  of  Jesus  in  the  Old  Testament,  or,  according  to  the 
phraseology  now  commonly  employed  on  the  Continent  in  regard 
to  this  matter,  have  laboured  to  refute  the  Messianic,  and  to 
establish  the  anti-Messianic  interpretation  of  them.  They  admit 
that  the  writers  of  the  Isew  Testament  believed  that  there  were 
many  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  contained  predictions 
of  Jesus.  But  though  they  call  themselves  Christians,  they  do 
not  hold  the  authority  of  the  apostles  sufficient  to  settle  this 
point ;  and  they  set  themselves  to  serve  to  the  uttermost  the 
cause  of  infidelity  by  employing  all  their  learning  and  ingenuity 
in  shewing  that  there  are  no  prophecies  in  the  Bible,  just  as  they 
labour  to  shew  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  not  perform  any 
miracles.  They  may  have  sometimes  succeeded  in  involving  in 
some  doubt,  as  a  mere  question  of  criticism,  the  precise  meaning 
of  some  particular  prophecies ;  but  no  learning  and  no  ingenuity 
can  succeed  in  involving  in  reasonable  doubt  the  great  truths  that 
there  are  predictions  of  future  events  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  have  been  fulfilled,  that  there  is  to  be  found 
there  a  series  of  predictions  pointing  distinctly  to  a  great 
messenger  of  God  who  was  to  rise  up  among  the  Jews,  and  that 
this  series  of  predictions  has  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
Of  late  God  has  been  pleased  to  raise  up  in  Germany  men  quite 
equal  to  the  most  distinguished  rationalists  in  talent  and  learning, 
and  with  much  sounder  views  of  divine  truth  and  of  the  word  of 
God,  who  have  successfully  contended  for  the  existence  of  predic¬ 
tions,  properly  so  called,  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  Messianic 
interpretation  of  them,  and  for  the  literal  fulfilment  of  them  in 
the  life  and  religion  of  Jesus  and  as  they  had  to  deal  with  men 
who  had  taken  up  thoroughly  infidel  ground,  their  works  are  not 
only  very  valuable  in  a  critical  point  of  view,  or  as  specimens  of 
scriptural  interpretation,  but  are  most  important  in  their  bearing 

^  Heiigstenberg,  of  Berlin,  C1iristolo(j]j  and  Introduction  to  the  Psalms,  and 
Commentary  on  them,  which  have  been  translated  into  English,  and  are  well 
deserving  of  perusal. 


PREDICTIOXS  BY  CHRIST. 


187 


upon  the  proof  of  Christ's  Messiahship,  and  thus  upon  the  general 
truth  of  Christianity. 

Before  concluding  this  subject  of  prophecy,  and  thereby  finish¬ 
ing  the  outline  of  the  external  evidences,  we  have  merely  to  notice 
that  this  topic  comprehends  also  predictions  ascribed  to  our 
Saviour,  and  alleged  to  have  been  fulfilled ;  more  especially  con¬ 
cerning  his  own  death  and  resurrection,  the  destruction  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  the  fate  of  the  Jews,  the  success  of  his  cause,  and  the  history 
of  his  church.^  If  it  can  be  proved,  as  it  can,  that  these  predic¬ 
tions  were  made  and  were  afterwards  fulfilled,  or  are  now  fulfilling, 
then  they  are  just  miracles  wrought  by  Christ,  and  operate  simply 
as  miracles  in  proving,  not  indeed  his  Messiahship,  but  his  claim 
to  be  received  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God. 

I  have  now  given  you  a  brief  outline  or  skeleton  of  the  external 
evidences  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  or  of  the  proof  of,  or  rather 
the  mode  of  proving,  the  credibility  of  the  messengers,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  credibility  of  the  message,  and  pointed  out  what 
seems  to  be  at  once  the  most  natural  and  the  most  logically  correct 
order  of  developing  the  whole  train  of  thought  in  its  different 
departments  by  which  the  ultimate  conclusion  that  Christ  and  his 
immediate  followers  were  commissioned  by  God,  and  authorised  to 
speak  in  his  name,  may  be  reached  and  established.  You  must  fill 
up  the  outline  by  your  own  study  and  meditation,  by  the  careful 
perusal  of  works  where  the  information  necessary  for  establishing 
some  of  the  leading  positions  is  collected  and  applied,  and  by  making 
both  the  facts  and  the  arguments  the  subject  of  fixed  and  deliberate 
reflection,  until  they  are  so  impressed  upon  your  understandings 
and  memories  as  to  be  ever  ready  for  use,  if  needful,  in  convincing- 
men  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  And  I  trust  that,  in  investigat¬ 
ing  this  matter,  you  will  take  care  to  cherish  ever  yourselves,  and 
when  necessary  inculcate  upon  others,  the  state  of  mind  and  heart 
so  evidently  required  in  our  Saviour  s  statements  which  may  be 
regarded  as  embodying  by  implication  what  is  a  precept  equally 
of  natural  and  revealed  religion :  "  If  any  man  will  do  his  will 
TO  dsXrifi(x,  avTou  r6is7v),  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it 
be  of  God  ”  (John  vii.  17). 

*  Horne’s  2''able  of  Rro^tlieclas,  in  Appendix  to  vol.  i. 


LECTURE  XV. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  GENERAL  TRUTH  OF 

CHRISTIANITY. 


flHIE  second  leading  division  under  which  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  are  usually  classed,  is  the  internal  evidences, 
or  the  proof  of  its  truth  and  divine  origin  that  may  be  derived 
from  the  nature  of  the  message,  as  distinguished  from  the 
character  and  credibility,  or,  in  one  word,  the  testimony  of  the 
messengers.  Jesus  and  his  apostles  professed  to  be  commissioned 
by  God  to  reveal  his  will  to  men,  and  on  this  ground  claimed  that 
men  should  receive,  as  coming  from  God,  what  they  taught  and 
enjoined.  They  produced  the  credentials  of  their  claims  in 
miracles  and  the  fulfilment  of  prophecies,  which  are  obviously 
fitted  to  establish  a  divine  attestation,  i.e>  to  convey  a  virtual 
declaration  on  God’s  part  that  they  were  to  be  received  as  his 
messengers.  We  found,  however,  in  considering  how  it  is  that 
miracles,  thoroughly  established  'by  satisfactory  evidence,  afford  a 
proof  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  doctrines  in  connection  with 
the  proclamation  of  w^hich  they  are  wrought,  that  there  is  good 
reason  to  doubt  whether  the  argument  from  miracles  can  be  fully 
established  without  some,  reference  to  the  character  of  the  doctrine 
promulgated.  This  doubt  arises  from  the  consideration  that  it  does 
not  seem  practicable  to  prove  either  from  reason  or  revelation — 
though  it  is  with  reason  alone,  or  natural  theology,  we  have  to  do 
in  the  matter  at  this  stage  of  the  argument,  when  we  are  dealing 
with  infidels — that  God  alone  can  work  miracles,  or  even  to  prove 
the  impossibility  of  invisible  beings  adverse  to  God  and  his  cause 
being  able  to  do,  and  being  permitted  to  do,  what  we  could  not 
but  regard  as  miracles.  We  can  prove  indeed  that  the  good 
Being  who  governs  the  world,  and  has  all  things  under  his  sove- 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


189 


reign  control,  will  not  allow  his  rational  and  responsible  creatures 
to  be  deceived,  without  giving  them  some  sufficient  means  of 
ascertaining  the  truth  in  the  matter.  But  we  cannot  prove  that 
the  means  of  ascertaining  whether  the  miracles  came  from  himself, 
and  are  proofs  of  his  approbation,  must  necessarily  be  found  in 
the  nature  and  accompanying  circumstances  of  the  miracles  them¬ 
selves;  and  hence  the  necessity  of  having  some  reference  to  the 
general  character  of  the  doctrines,  and  of  the  system  in  connection 
with  which  the  miracles  were  wrought.  But  the  difficulty  lies,  as 
I  formerly  remarked,  solely  in  the  abstract  questions  which  may 
be  started  in  connection  with  this  subject ;  for  there  is  no  practi¬ 
cal  difficulty  in  proving  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  apostles^ 
or  the  Christian  revelation,  did  not  come  from  wdcked  beings, 
adversaries  of  God  and  righteousness,  and  that  therefore,  being 
supported  by  well  authenticated  miracles,  it  must  have  come  from 
God  himself.  The  investigation  of  this  subject  necessarily  leads  to 
some  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  message,  the  character  of 
the  revelation,  viewed  in  connection  with  what  we  already  know 
about  God  and  his  character  and  government  from  the  informations 
of  natural  theology  ;  and  Dr  Chalmers,  with  the  candour  natural 
to  great  minds,  has  told  us  that  the  investigation  of  this  subject, 
of  the  connection  between  the  reality  of  the  miracles  and  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine,  had  produced  some  modification  of  the  views 
he  once  entertained  with  regard  to  the  subject  of  the  internal 
evidences,  viewed  in  connection  with  the  informations  of  natural 
theology : — 

“We  are  aware  that,  in  this  view  of  the  matter,  a  previous  natural 
religion  would  seem  to  be  indispensable  ;  whereas,  in  the  other  view  of 
it,  the  whole  credit  and  authority  that  belong  to  the  Christian  religion  would 
have  their  primary  fountain  head  in  the  proper  and  peculiar  evidences  of  reve¬ 
lation.  Miracles,  simply  as  such,  and  without  regard  to  adjuncts  at  all,  were 
enough  in  all  conceivable  circumstances  to  authenticate  any  professed  commu¬ 
nication  from  God  to  the  world.  The  historical  evidences  for  these  miracu¬ 
lous  facts  were  enough  of  themselves  to  constitute  a  simple  but  solid  foundation 
for  the  whole  superstructure  of  our  creed.  We  confess  our  partiality,  in 
other  days,  to  what  we  held  as  a  beautiful  and  consistent  exemplification 
of  the  question  between  us  and  infidels.  There  is  nothing  however  which 
has  contributed  more  to  modify  our  views  upon  this  subject  than  the  ques¬ 
tion  whereof  we  now  treat.’  Instead  of  holding  all  religion  as  suspended 


*  That  of  the  connection  between  the  miracle  and  the  doctrine. 


190 


FIFTEENTH  LECTURE. 


on  the  miraculous  evidences,  we  see  this  evidence  itself  standing  at  the  bar 
of  an  anterior  principle,  and  there  waiting  for  its  authentication.  There 
is  a  previous  natural  religion  on  whose  aid  we  call  for  the  determination 
of  this  matter.  It  is  an  authority  that  we  at  one  time  should  have  utterly 
disregarded  and  contemned  :  but  now  hold  it  in  higher  reverence,  since, 
reflecting  on  the  supremacy  of  conscience  ^within  us,  we  deem  this  to  be 
the  token  of  an  ascendant  principle  of  morality  and  truth  in  the  universe 
around  us.’^^ 

There  are  two  general  questions  in  regard  to  this  subject  that 
obviously  present  themselves,  and  demand  some  attention  : — 1st, 
Is  there  anything  in  the  revelation  given  us  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  in  the  message  they  have  brought  us,  which  affords  any 
good  ground  to  doubt  or  deny  that  it  came  from  God  ?  and  2d, 
Is  there  anything  in  this  revelation  that  affords  a  positive  proof 
or  presumption  that  it  came  from  him  ?  Now,  at  present  you  will 
recollect  that  we  are  not  investigating  the  question  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  but  only  the  general  truth  of  the 
Christian  revelation ;  and  that  therefore  we  have  not  at  present  to  do 
either  with  the  objections  deduced  from,  or  the  confirmations  based 
upon,  particular  passages  of  the  Scriptures,  but  only  with  the  leading 
features  of  the  revelation  in  general,  its  doctrines,  and  its  morality. 

Objections  to  the  contents  of  revelation,  and  especially  to  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  are  much  more  easily  got  up  than  objec¬ 
tions  to  its  proper  direct  historical  evidence.  There  is  something 
in  fabricating  and  in  enforcing  such  objections  that  is  gratifying 
to  the  pride  of  human  reason,  and  therefore  this  has  generally 
been  a  favourite  field  for  the  exercise  of  the  ingenuity  of  infidels. 
They  have  been  accustomed  to  allege  and  to  attempt  to  prove  that 
that  there  are  things  in  the  Christian  revelation  which  are  absurd 
or  contrary  to  reason,  contradictory  to  or  inconsistent  with  each 
other,  opposed  to  correct  notions  of  the  divine  character  and 
government,  and  even  injurious  to  the  interests  of  morality;  and 
that,  consequently,  it  did  not  come  from  God,  and  is  unworthy  of 
the  confidence  and  submission  of  rational  men.  All  this  has  been 
alleged  by  infidels,  who  have  appealed  to  specific  doctrines  of 
Christianity  in  support  of  these  general  objections,  and  all  these 
allegations  have  been  answered  and  exposed  by  the  defenders  of 
revelation.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  general  truth  of  the  position 
which  Dr  Chalmers  has  laid  down  and  enforced  upon  this  subject, 
’  Chalmers’s  Eoklences,  book  vi.  chap.  viii.  vol.  i.  pp.  384,  385. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


191 


that  these  objections  of  infidels  have  been  treated  "with  much 
more  attention  than  they  deserved,  and  that  as  the  objections 
originated  commonly  in  unwarranted  and  presumptuous  specula¬ 
tion  upon  subjects  in  regard  to  which  the  natural  reason  of  man 
is  by  no  means  a  safe  or  certain  guide,  so  there  has  been  a  good 
deal  of  unnecessary  and  sometimes  presumptuous  speculation 
exhibited  by  the  defenders  of  Christianity  in  answering  them. 
And  perhaps  a  still  worse  result  has  been  that  some  of  the 
defenders  of  Christianity,  having  themselves  very  defective  and 
erroneous  views  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  was  certainly  the 
case  with  many  of  those  who  chiefly  conducted  the  defence  of 
revelation  against  the  English  infidels  of  the  early  part  of  last 
century,  have  been  led  to  explain  away  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
to  prune  them  down  to  what  the  natural  reason  of  man  might  be 
inclined  to  receive  as  true  and  probable,  and  to  reduce  the  Chris¬ 
tian  revelation  to  little  more  than  a  republication  of  the  law  of 
nature.  At  the  same  time,  it  seems  undeniable  that  such  objec¬ 
tions  are  in  their  general  nature  and  character  relevant,  and  that 
it  is  needful  to  dispose  of  them.  If  it  be  alleged  upon  plausible 
grounds  that  anything  contained  in  the  Christian  revelation  is 
contrary  to  the  plain  dictates  of  reason ;  that  it  involves  a  con¬ 
tradiction,  or  is  opposed  to  some  other  part  of  the  revelation  itself ; 
that  it  is  dishonouring  to  God,  or  injurious  to  morality;  it  seems 
reasonable  and  necessary  that  these  allegations  should  be  dis¬ 
proved,  and  the  doctrines  objected  to  vindicated,  although  cer¬ 
tainly  much  more  use  ought  to  be  made  in  this  work  of  vindication 
than  has  been  done  by  many  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity  of 
these  two  important  and  fundamental  considerations,  viz. — 1st, 
The  weakness  of  human  reason  and  man's  ignorance  of  God — 
their  incapacity  of  determining  with  certainty  a  priori  what  is 
worthy  of  God,  accordant  with  his  character  and  government, 
fitted  to  promote  his  purposes,  and  might  therefore  be  reasonably 
expected  in  a  revelation  that  professed  to  come  from  him ;  and 
2d,  The  unreasonable  and  un philosophical  character  of  the  notion 
that  the  direct  and  proper  proof  in  support  of  the  truth  of  a  revela¬ 
tion,  while  unassailable  upon  the  ground  of  its  own  proper  merits 
as  a  proof,  may  be  virtually  set  aside  or  disregarded  upon  the 
ground  of  mere  difficulties  which  may  not  admit  of  being  all 
directly  explained  and  cleared  away,  and  especially  difficulties 


192 


FIFTEENTH  LECTUEE. 


based  upon  topics  of  speculation  which  in  their  full  magnitude 
and  extent  lie  very  much  beyond  the  cognizance  of  the  human 
faculties.  Where  the  evils  formerly  adverted  to,  and  especially 
that  of  explaining  away  the  real  doctrines  taught  in  Scripture,  are 
avoided,  and  these  principles  now  stated  are  kept  steadily  in  view, 
it  might  be  necessary  and  useful  to  shew,  in  regard  to  the  particu¬ 
lar  doctrines  of  Christianity  objected  against,  that  though  in  some 
cases  above  reason,  they  are  not  contrary  to  reason ;  that  they 
involve  no  contradiction  or  inconsistency ;  that  they  contradict 
nothing  which  we  know  with  certainty  about  God  from  any  other 
source;  and  that  they  are  not  dishonouring  to  him,  or  injurious 
to  morality.  And  though  there  has  occasionally  been  some  rash 
and  presumptuous  speculation  exhibited  in  repelling  as  well  as  in 
enforcing  such  objections  as  those  we  now  refer  to,  there  has  also 
been  much  valuable  matter  brought  out  in  this  way  that  is  fitted 
to  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  of  sound  doctrine.  I  shall  give 
one  instance  of  this.  Bishop  Conybeare,  who  succeeded  Butler  in 
the  see  of  Bristol,  and  who  was  no  unworthy  successor  even  of 
that  great  man,  having  written  a  very  masterly  work,  entitled 
A  Defence  of  Revealed  Religion  in  reply  to  Tindal,  &c.,  has  a 
very  able  sermon  On  the  Nature,  Possibility,  and  Certainty  of 
Miracles.  In  this  sermon,  after  establishing  the  certainty  of  the 
miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  he  admits  ‘'that  no  miracles 
whatsoever  can  prove  a  doctrine  to  be  divine  which  is  absurd, 
which  either  contradicts  itself  or  any  other  known  and  certain 
truth,  or  is  inconsistent  with  any  of  the  perfections  of  the  divine 
nature.”  He  then  proceeds  to  shew  that  “  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Christian  scheme  absurd  or  inconsistent  with  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes.”  And  after  illustrating  the  important  distinction  between 
a  doctrine  being  above  reason  and  contrary  to  reason,  he  concludes 
“  that  all  arguments  against  our  religion  drawn  from  the  matter  of 
it  are  impertinent,  unless  they  prove  that  it  in  some  way  or  other 
implies  a  contradiction.”  He  then  goes  on  to  shew  that  this 
cannot  be  established ;  and,  referring,  as  to  a  commonly  alleged 
instance  of  contradiction,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  he  gives 
the  following  beautifully  clear,  precise,  and  satisfactory  explana¬ 
tion  upon  that  point : — 

“  To  assert  indeed  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  distinct 
infinite  beings,  and  yet  but  one  being,  is  an  express  contradiction.  To  assert 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


193 


that  they  are  three  distinct  beings,  of  which  two  are  inferior,  and  yet  each 
God,  is  either  to  nse  the  term  God  equivocally  in  this  case  (which  makes  one 
])art  of  Scripture  contradict  another),  or  else  is  an  express  contradiction. 
But  to  assert  that  there  is  but  one  divine  nature  or  essence,  that  this  undi¬ 
vided  essence  is  common  to  three  persons,  that  by  person,  when  applied  to  God, 
we  do  not  mean  the  same  as  when  applied  to  men,  but  only  somewhat  analo¬ 
gous  to  it,  that  we  have  no  adequate  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  the  word 
person  when  applied  to  God,  and  use  it  only  because  distinct  personal  attri¬ 
butes  and  actions  are  ascribed  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  is  no  contradiction  ;  we  do  not  assert  that  one  is  three,  and  three  one  (as 
we  are  falsely  charged),  but  only  that  what  are  three  in  one  respect  may  be 
three  only  in  another.  We  do  not  assert  that  three  beings  are  one  being,  that 
three  persons  are  one  person,  or  that  three  intelligent  beings  are  one  intelli¬ 
gent  being  (as  the  word  person  signifies  when  applied  to  men),  but  only  that 
in  the  same  undivided  nature  there  are  three  differences  analogous  to  personal 
differences  amongst  men  ;  and  though  we  cannot  precisely  determine  what 
these  differences  are,  we  have  no  more  reason  to  conclude  them  impossible 
than  a  blind  man  hath  to  conclude  the  impossibility  of  colours  because  he 
cannot  see  them.”^ 

The  substance  of  what  is  contained  in  this  extract  is  of  course 
to  be  found  in  many  authors  when  defending  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  but  I  do  not  know  that  it  has  ever  been  better  put  than 
in  this  sermon  on  miracles. 

But  the  advocates  of  Christianity  are  not  contented  with  proving 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Christian  revelation  which  affords  any 
ground  in  right  reason  for  denying  or  even  doubting  that  it  came 
from  God,  nothing  but  what  leaves  the  proper  direct  historical  and 
miraculous  evidence  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  commissioned 
by  God,  untouched  and  unimpaired,  to  exert  its  own  appropriate 
influence.  They  have  also  in  general  founded  upon  the  character 
and  contents  of  the  revelation,  a  positive  proof  that  it  came  from 
God  through  their  instrumentality.  They  have  differed  indeed 
about  the  precise  value  and  weight  of  this  evidence,  but  almost  all 
have  admitted  that  it  does  go  to  confirm  or  corroborate  the  proof 
for  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  that  it  has  some  weight  pro¬ 
bative  or  presumptive.  The  Christian  revelation  contains  and 
unfolds  a  system  of  doctrine  and  a  system  of  morality  or  duty, 
and  the  question  is :  Do  we,  when  we  examine  this  system  of  doc- 

*  Conybeare’s  Sermon  on  The  Nature,  Possibility,  and  Certainty  of  Miracles, 
pp.  27,  28. 

N 


194 


FIFTEENTH  LECTURE, 


trine  and  duty,  discover  in  its  general  nature  and  character,  or  in  its 
special  features,  any  clear  and  certain  indications  of  its  source  or 
origin.  Now — first,  it  is  very  evident,  and  can  be  easily  proved, 
that  this  system  did  not  owe  its  origin  to  wicked  men  or  to  wicked 
beings  of  any  class  or  order,  i.e.  to  beings  adverse  to  what  we  know 
from  other  sources  concerning  the  character  and  government  of 
God,  or  to  the  interests  of  piety  and  righteousness.  But  this  does 
not  advance  us  much  beyond  the  position  we  occupied  under  the 
former  head ;  as  the  practical  result  of  it  is  little  more  than  to 
shew  that  the  system  is  free  from  objection.  Second,  it  may  be 
asserted,  and  can  be  proved,  that  it  could  not  have  been  devised 
or  invented  by  men  in  the  unassisted  use  of  their  natural  powers ; 
and  this  we  think  is  the  best,  safest,  and  most  satisfactory  way  of 
putting  the  argument  for  the  general  truth  of  Christianity,  derived 
from  the  character  of  the  message,  the  contents  of  the  revelation. 
There  is  something  that  seems  presumptuous  and  unsatisfactory 
in  laying  down  directly  and  at  once  the  position  that  the  message 
is  altogether  so  good  and  so  excellent  that  it  is  quite  worthy  of 
God,  and  could  have  come  only  from  him.  This  seems  to  partake 
too  much  of  that  spirit  of  presumptuous  a  'priori  speculation 
which  Dr  Chalmers  has  so  fully  and  effectively  exposed.  It  seems 
to  be  assuming  a  larger  knowledge,  and,  as  it  were,  experience  of 
God  than  men  really  possess ;  not  that  we  mean  to  doubt  or  deny 
either  the  reality  or  the  rationality  of  what  has  been  called  the 
self-evidencing  powder  of  the  gospel  and  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
by  which  they  indicate  their  author  and  origin,  by  which,  like  the 
other  works  of  God,  they  may  directly  and  at  once  lead  the  mind 
to  him  who  gave  them  existence.  Neither  do  we  mean  to  deny,  but 
on  the  contrary  we  firmly  believe,  that  infidels  are  often,  in  point 
of  fact,  led  to  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  accompanying  the  mere  preaching  of  the  gospel,  or 
tlie  exhibition  of  the  substance  of  the  revelation  and  the  mere 
reading  of  the  word.  But  all  this  does  not  properly  concern  the 
question  we  are  at  present  considering,  which  is  substantially 
this :  How  may  a  train  of  thought  and  argument  be  best  exhi¬ 
bited  and  laid  out  which,  based  upon  principles  held  both  by 
believers  and  unbelievers,  and  logically  correct  and  compact  in  all 
its  parts  and  steps,  may  be  fitted  to  compel  infidels,  unless  they  are 
resolved  to  violate  all  the  laws  of  right  reasoning,  to  admit 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


195 


that  Christianity  is  a  revelation  from  God  ?  An  infidel  indeed 
could  not  consistently  adduce  objections  against  revelation  founded 
upon  its  alleged  inconsistency  with  the  divine  character  and 
government,  as  most  infidels  have  done,  and  at  the  same  time 
object  to  our  drawing  arguments  in  support  of  it  from  our  natural 
knowledge  of  God.  But  this  would  merely  give  us  an  argumen- 
ium  ad  hominem  against  him,  and  would  not  prove  the  proper 
logical  truth  and  soundness  of  our  own  principle.  We  know  little 
of  God  by  nature,  and  are  scarcely  entitled  to  speak  with  much 
confidence  of  what  is  worthy  of  him,  or  of  what,  because  we  think 
it  worthy  of  him,  must  have  come  from  him.  But  we  know  men, 
we  can  fully  comprehend  them,  we  can  estimate  their  powers  and 
capacities,  both  generally  and  with  reference  to  the  particular  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  which  they  may  have  been  placed,  and  we  can 
speak  with  some  confidence  as  to  what  it  was  or  was  not  possible 
for  them  without  assistance  from  a  higher  power  to  have  done  or 
achieved. 

But  we  have  not  merely  our  knowledge  of  man  as  man,  and  of 
his  powers  and  capacities ;  we  have  also  what  is  a  matter  within 
our  legitimate  cognizance,  the  knowledge  of  the  situation  and 
circumstances  in  which  the  particular  men  from  whom  this  reve¬ 
lation  proceeded  were  placed.  The  question  is  not  merely,  Could 
this  revelation,  this  system  of  doctrine  and  morality,  have  origi¬ 
nated  with  men  ?  but.  Could  it  have  originated  with  men  placed 
in  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ? 
They  were  illiterate  Jews,  and  we  have  some  means  of  knowing 
what  this  implies  in  regard  to  their  mental  cultivation  and  acquire¬ 
ments,  their  capacities  and  opportunities.  And  even  though  we 
should  lay  aside  the  idea  of  their  being  illiterate,  and  suppose 
them  to  have  had  full  and  ready  access  to  all  the  philosophy  and 
science,  to  all  the  knowledge  and  literature  that  then  existed  in 
the  world,  still  we  can  estimate  what  assistance  this  would  have 
rendered,  and  determine  whether,  in  connection  with  what  we 
know  generally  of  the  human  faculties,  it  would  have  enabled 
them  to  devise  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine  and  of  duty. 
This  argument  then  is  in  its  nature  perfectly  legitimate ;  and 
when  the  principle  is  applied  to  the  matter  in  hand,  there  are 
abundant  materials  for  establishinor  the  conclusion  that  men, 
unassisted  by  any  higher  order  of  beings,  and  especially  men 


196 


FIFTEENTH  LECTURE. 


placed  in  the  situation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  could  not  have 
invented  and  devised  the  system  of  doctrine  and  duty  which  they 
gave  to  the  world,  and  which,  ever  since  they  promulgated  it,  has 
exerted  a  most  important  and  salutary  influence  upon  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  human  race. 

It  is  very  evident,  and  may  be  very  confidently  asserted,  that 
many  men,  if  placed  in  Mohammad’s  situation,  and  with  access  to 
the  Christian  Scriptures  as  he  had,  might  have  produced  the 
Koran  ;  and  it  is  equally  evident,  and  at  any  rate  can  be  satis¬ 
factorily  proved  by  an  investigation  of  the  subject,  that  men,  and 
especially  men  placed  in  the  situation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
could  not  have  produced  the  scheme  which  is  developed  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  proof  of  this  must  of  course  be  derived 
from  a  detailed  investigation  of  the  scheme  itself  in  its  leading 
features,  and  in  its  particular  details  viewed  in  connection  with 
the  attainments  men  had  already,  when  this  scheme  was  promul¬ 
gated,  reached  in  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  duty,  and  in 
connection  with  the  great  objects  which  the  scheme  was  intended 
to  effect.  The  development  of  the  harmony  and  excellence,  the 
beauty  and  sublimity,  the  wisdom  and  efficacy,  in  short,  the 
exalted  and  superhuman  character  of  the  matter  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  of  the  scheme  of  doctrine  and  morality  unfolded  in  the 
Bible,  afford  full  scope  and  exercise  of  the  highest  powers  and 
faculties  with  which  men  have  ever  been  gifted ;  and  we  are  very 
sure  that  those  who  are  best  qualified  for  appreciating  all  this 
themselves,  and  for  developing  it  before  the  minds  of  others,  will 
be  the  most  ready  to  acknowledge  that  to  have  originally 
discovered  and  devised  the  scheme  far  transcends  the  powers  and 
capacities  of  men,  and  that  therefore  it  did  not  originate  with  the 
humble  and  illiterate  Jews  who  first  promulgated  it  to  the  world, 
and  through  whose  instrumentality  it  has  become  known  to  us. 

But  if  the  scheme  did  not  originate  with  Jesus  and  his 
immediate  followers,  viewing  them  of  course  simply  as  men,  and 
with  reference  to  the  ordinary  powers  and  capacities  of  men, 
unassisted  by  any  beings  of  a  superior  order  of  intelligence,  as 
the  condition  of  the  present  argument  evidently  requires,  the 
question  remains.  Who  was  its  author,  from  what  source  did  it 
come  ?  These  men  who  promulgated  it  to  the  world  have  assured 
us  that  they  received  it  from  God,  and  were  commanded  by  him 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


197 


to  make  it  known  to  men;  and  they  have  given  ns  abundant 
evidence,  in  their  sufferings  and  miracles,  not  only  that  they 
believed  this,  but  that  it  really  was  so.  At  present,  however,  we 
are  precluded  from  having  recourse  to  this  source  of  knowledge  or 
proof,  and  must  confine  ourselves  to  the  character  and  contents  of 
the  revelation  itself.  But  the  same  conclusion  is  easily  enough 
reached  without  relying  on  the  averment  of  the  first  promulgafors 
of  the  scheme.  It  could  not  have  proceeded  from  wicked  beings, 
whether  human  or  superhuman ;  it  could  not  have  been  devised 
or  fabricated  by  men,  for  it  far  transcends  the  powers  and  capa¬ 
cities  of  man.  The  only  other  alternatives  are,  that  it  came  from 
God,  or  what  is  practically  and  substantially  the  same  thing,  from 
some  superior  order  of  holy  intelligences,  who  reflect  God’s 
perfections,  and  act  in  all  things,  in  entire  submission  to  his 
will  and  in  full  accordance  with  his  commandments,  and  who,  if 
they  were  cencerned  in  the  matter  at  all,  must  have  acted  solely 
as  his  agents  or  instruments  in  communicating  to  the  first  promul¬ 
gators  of  the  scheme  among  men  what  they  in  this  way  were 
equally  his  agents  or  instruments  in  communicating  it  to  us.  In 
investigating  the  character  and  contents  of  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion,  the  scheme  of  doctrine  and  duty  unfolded  in  the  New 
Testament,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  it  gives  any 
indications  of  its  alleged  divine  origin,  some  writers  on  Christian 
evidence  have  referred  to  the  character  of  our  blessed  Saviour 
portrayed  in  the  New  Testament,  as  containing  something  perfectly 
original,  different  from  and  superior  to  everything  that  had  ever 
before  been  exhibited  among  men,  and  which  the  fishermen  and 
the  publicans  of  Galilee  could  never  have  invented,  and  could 
never  have  described,  unless  they  had  simply  copied  and  repre¬ 
sented  the  living  model  that  was  before  them.  Paley  says  that 
the  character  of  Christ  is  part  of  the  morality  of  the  gospel,  and 
so  it  is ;  the  greatest  minds  have  laboured  to  form  and  to  unfold 
the  idea  of  a  perfect  specimen  of  humanity,  but  they  have  all 
fallen  immeasurably  short  of  the  picture  which,  without  effort 
and  without  art,  is  given  us  in  the  Gospels  of  Him  who  is  the 
Apostle  and  the  High  Priest  of  our  profession.  Paley,  in  the 
second  part  of  his  Evidences,  and  under  the  general  head  of  the 
auxiliary  evidences  of  Christianity,  has  two  chapters  relating  to 
this  subject,  one  entitled  On  the  Identity,”  and  the  other  On  the 


198 


FIFTEENTH  LECTURE. 


Originality  of  Christ’s  character  but  this,  in  the  aspect  in  which 
we  at  present  advert  to  it,  was  not  a  subject  in  which  Paley’s 
peculiar  excellences  were  most  likely  to  appear  to  greatest 
advantage. 

We  formerly  adverted  to  the  fact  of  Paley  having  introduced 
the  subject  of  prophecy  under  the  general  head  of  “  The  Auxiliary 
Evidences  of  Christianity,”  and  shewed  you  that  this  arrangement 
was  unfounded  and  erroneous,  as  prophecy,  if  it  were  a  proof  at  all, 
was  a  distinct  and  independent  proof,  and  not  auxiliary  to  any 
other  department  of  the  evidences.  He  seems,  however,  to  have 
used  the  phrase  auxiliary  evidences  of  Christianity,  to  comprehend 
all  these  points  or  topics  which  did  not  of  themselves  afford  proofs, 
but  only  presumptions  varying  in  the  degree  of  their  strength  in 
favour  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  which  thus  contribute  in 
cumulo  to  strengthen  and  confirm  the  general  position  that  it 
came  from  God.  This  is  a  somewhat  loose  and  inaccurate  mode 
of  describing  and  arranging  these  topics,  and  is  perhaps  a  proof 
that  he  did  not  bestow  quite  so  much  care  and  attention  upon  the 
second  as  upon  the  first  part  of  his  work ;  he  has  accordingly  just 
put  down,  under  the  miscellaneous  head  of  the  auxiliary  evidences 
of  Christianity,  the  originality  of  Christ’s  character  as  a  distinct 
independent  topic,  going  along  with  many  others  to  swell  and 
strengthen  the  presumptions  in  favour  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Christian  revelation  ;  whereas  its  proper  place  in  logical  order  and 
arrangement  is  as  one  of  the  branches  of  the  internal  evidences ; 
one  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the  actual  revelation  made  to  us 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  going — along  with  the  other  features  of 
this  revelation,  such  as  the  morality  of  the  gospel,  to  which  also 
Paley  has  given  a  chapter  in  the  second  part  of  his  work — to  estab¬ 
lish,  first  of  all,  this  position  that  this  revelation  could  not  have 
been  devised  or  invented,  fabricated  or  discovered  by  unassisted 
men,  and  then,  as  an  inference  from  this,  that  it  originated  with 
God,  and  was  communicated  by  him.^ 

Innumerable  works  upon  the  evidences,  and  many  other  works 
not  professing  formally  to  discuss  the  evidences,  contain  expositions 
and  illustrations  of  the  excellency  and  usefulness  of  the  Christian 

1  Rousseau’s  Admiration  of  the  Morality  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  Character  of 
Christ,  quoted  in  Bogue  on  The  Divine  Authority  of  the  New  Testament,  where  are 
also  some  excellent  remarks  on  the  character  of  Christ,  pp.  21,  22. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


199 


revelation,  of  the  truth  and  beauty,  viewed  with  reference  to  the 
standard  of  right  reason  and  the  moral  nature  of  man,  of  the  doc¬ 
trinal  and  moral  system  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  their  vast 
superiority  over  all  other  systems  that  have  ever  been  promulgated 
concerning  God  and  duty;  and  everything  of  this  sort  bears  more  or 
less  directly  upon  the  internal  evidences,  upon  the  proof  that  may 
be  deduced  from  the  character  and  contents  of  the  revelation  for 
its  divine  origin.  Much  indeed  might  be  and  has  been  said  in 
illustration  of  the  excellence  and  superiority  of  the  Christian 
system  of  doctrine  and  duty  that  can  be  regarded  as  affording  only 
a  presumption  and  not  a  proof  that  it  was  supernaturally  revealed 
by  God,  and  much  that  has  been  brought  forward  upon  this  subject, 
and  that  fairly  admitted  of  being  applied  to  establish  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  has  failed  of  producing  the  proper  effect  as  evidence, 
however  useful  it  might  be  in  other  respects,  because  it  was  made 
the  foundation  only  of  such  vague  and  indefinite  conclusions  as 
these — this  system  is  excellent,  is  beautiful,  useful,  worthy  of  God, 
and  so  on ;  in  place  of  being  brought  to  bear  upon  the  much  more 
precise  and  tangible  conclusion,  that  this  system  could  not  have 
been  invented  and  devised  by  men,  and  especially  by  men  placed 
in  the  situation  of  its  first  promulgators,  which  again  leads,  by  a 
very  short  and  easy  process  of  inference,  to  the  further  conclusion 
that  it  was  supernaturally  revealed  by  God. 

In  reading  or  reflecting  upon  the  internal  evidences,  the  proofs 
derived  from  the  doctrinal  and  moral  system  of  Christianity,  you 
will,  I  am  persuaded,  find  that  it  gives  much  clearness  and  dis¬ 
tinctness  to  your  views,  and  enables  you  to  see  more  clearly,  and 
to  hold  more  firmly  the  real  character  and  force  of  the  argument, 
if  you  ever  keep  fully  before  you  that  the  precise  point  to  be 
proved,  that  which  is  the  only  safe  and  sure  stepping-stone,  so  far 
as  this  branch  of  the  evidence  is  concerned,  to  the  ultimate  con¬ 
clusion  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  system,  is  the  position  that  it 
was  not,  and  could  not  be,  devised  and  invented  by  unassisted 
men.^  I  know  but  of  two  books  devoted  to  the  subject  of  the 
internal  evidences  where  the  materials  are  brought  fully  and 
formally  to  bear  upon  this  precise  and  definite  position  ;  and  for 
this  reason  mainly  it  is,  I  think,  that  they  are  more  effective  than 

^  Bogue  on  The  Divine  Authority  of  the  New  Testament,  and  Fuller’s  Gospel  its 
own  Witness. 


200 


FIFTEENTH  LECTURE. 


any  others,  I  recollect  to  have  read  upon  this  particular  point. 
The  first  is  the  well-known  and  very  ingenious  little  work  of  Soame 
Jenyns,  entitled  A  Vieiv  of  the  Internal  Evidences  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Religion.  He  errs  egregiously  in  the  outset  in  deprecating 
the  evidence  from  miracles,  a  specimen  of  a  weakness  by  no  means 
uncommon,  that  leads  men  unnecessarily  and  unwarrantably  to 
speak  slightingly  of  other  subjects  in  order  to  exalt  their  own 
favourite  topic;  and  some  of  his  statements  upon  matters  more 
strictly  theological  are  certainly  not  to  be  implicitly  followed. 
But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  has  very  successfully  and 
effectively  established,  by  a  survey  of  the  doctrines  and  the  morality 
of  the  New  Testament,  his  fundamental  proposition,  “  that  such  a 
system  of  religion  and  morality  could  not  possibly  have  been  the 
work  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  much  less  of  these  obscure,  ignor¬ 
ant,  and  illiterate  persons  who  actually  did  discover  and  publish 
it  to  the  world,  and  that  therefore  it  must  undoubtedly  have  been 
effected  by  the  interposition  of  divine  power,  that  is,  that  it  must 
derive  its  origin  from  God.'’  Paley,  in  his  chapter  on  “  The  Morality 
of  the  Gospel,”  has  very  highly  commended  Jenyns,  and  expressed 
entire  concurrence  with  his  views. 

The  other  is  a  German  work,  which  has  been  translated  into 
English  in  the  United  States,  but  is  not  so  well  known  in  this 
country  as  it  should  be — Beinhards  Plan  of  the  Founder  of 
Christianity.  The  author  does  not  enter  into  any  detailed  sur¬ 
vey  of  the  doctrinal  or  moral  system  of  Christianity,  but  brings 
out  with  much  ingenuity  and  eloquence  the  leading  features  of 
the  plan  which  the  New  Testament  develops  for  the  moral  im¬ 
provement  of  the  human  race ;  illustrates  it  in  its  compass  and  in 
its  character  as  bearing  upon  religion,  morality,  and  society,  and 
the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  carried  into  effect ;  contrasts  it 
with  the  plans  devised  by  all  the  great  men  of  antiquity  for  the 
amelioration  of  men,  and  deduces  from  the  whole  discussion  the 
conclusion  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  greatest  and  most  exalted  of 
men,  that  he  was  an  extraordinary  teacher  sent  from  God. 


LECTURE  XYI. 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCES  —  CLASSIFICATION  OF  EVI¬ 
DENCES  IN  GENERAL  —  ANIMADVERSIONS  UPON  DR 
CHALMERS’S  STATEMENTS  ON  THIS  POINT. 


The  third  leading  division  under  which  the  evidences  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  may  be  classed  is  the  experimental,  comprehending 
everything  that  affords  any  proof  of  its  divine  origin  derived  from 
the  actual  effects  it  has  produced,  or  still  produces,  upon  men 
collectively  or  individually.  Now,  this  experimental  evidence 
admits  again  of  a  twofold  division,  bearing  some  reference  to  the 
two  previous  divisions  of  the  external  and  the  internal  evidences. 
The  external  concerns  the  credibility  of  the  messengers,  viewed 
apart  from  the  character  of  the  message ;  the  internal  respects  the 
nature  and  character,  the  substance  and  contents,  of  the  message 
itself,  apart  from  the  proof  that  can  be  adduced  of  the  credibility 
of  the  messengers.  When  we  investigate  the  external  evidence, 
we  direct  our  attention  to  the  claims  which  Christ  and  his  apostles 
put  forth  to  be  received  as  divine  messengers,  and  the  miracles  by 
which  they  supported  them.  When  we  have  investigated  this 
subject  upon  the  grounds  properly  applicable  to  the  settlement  of 
such  a  question,  we  then  naturally  inquire.  How  were  these  claims, 
and  the  miracles  upon  which  they  professed  to  rest,  received  ? 
Were  the  claims  which  these  men  put  forth,  and  which  seem  to 
he  so  well  established,  admitted  by  those  to  whom  they  were  first 
addressed  ?  and  if  so,  to  what  extent  and  in  wdiat  circumstances  ? 
Is  there  anything  in  the  extent  to  which  the  claims  of  these  men 
— in  other  words,  the  truth  of  Christianity — were  admitted  at  the 
time,  and  subsequently,  or  in  anything  else  connected  with  the 
history  of  this  matter,  which  affords  any  argument  in  support  of 


202 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


the  divine  origin  of  the  religion  ?  This  leads  to  the  consideration 
of  the  argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  derived  from  its 
success  when  first  proclaimed,  and  from  its  subsequent  propaga¬ 
tion  in  the  world — an  argument  discussed  in  most  books  on  the 
evidences,  though  not  usually  under  the  head  of  “  experimental/’ 
And  yet  it  is  fairly  comprehended  under  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  the  general  description  usually  given  of  what  is  included 
in  this  department  of  evidence — the  proof  derived  from  the  effects 
or  results  of  Christianity.  The  consideration  of  the  reception  of 
the  claims  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  by  men  who  lived  at  the  time 
may  indeed  be  comprehended  under  the  general  head  of  the  exter¬ 
nal  evidences,  as  it  greatly  strengthens  our  conviction  of  the  truth 
and  certainty  of  the  grounds  on  which  their  claims  were  based. 
Still,  it  is  not  the  proper  or  principal  ground  on  which  we  believe 
in  the  truth  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  for  that  is  the 
testimony  of  the  apostles  themselves;  and  while  it  is  a  very  strong 
confirmation  of  the  truth  of  their  claims,  and  the  reality  of  their 
miracles,  it  would  not  of  itself,  and  in  the  absence  of  all  other  cir¬ 
cumstances,  be  sufficient  to  establish  them.  The  claims  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  and  the  miracles  upon  which  they  were  based, 
were  tested  or  put  to  the  proof  by  their  being  publicly  proclaimed 
and  pressed  upon  men’s  attention  and  reception  in  circumstances 
every  way  favourable  to  their  being  exposed  if  unfounded  and 
untrue.  Something  surely  may  be  learned  from  the  result  of  this 
experiment  in  the  actual  reception  they  met  with,  and  in  the 
measure  of  success  they  obtained ;  and  the  consideration  of  this 
topic  may,  without  any  impropriety  of  language,  be  classed  under 
the  head  of  the  experimental  evidence. 

The  leading  propositions  which  the  defenders  of  Christianity 
usually  maintain  upon  this  point  are  these — first,  that  the  claims 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  taking  into  account  their  nature  and 
character,  and  the  grounds  on  which  they  professedly  rested,  could 
not  have  met  with  such  a  reception,  or  obtained  such  a  measure 
of  success,  as  it  is  certain  they  did,  if  they  had  been  capable  of 
being  exposed,  i.e.  if  they  had  not  been  true,  and  thoroughly  estab¬ 
lished.  The  proof  of  this,  of  course,  is  to  be  found  in  a  general 
survey  of  the  state  of  matters  at  the  time,  the  character,  views, 
and  influence  of  the  different  classes  of  men  with  whom  they  came 
into  contact,  the  motives  by  which  they  were  animated,  the  oppor- 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCE, 


203 


timities  they  enjoyed  of  testing  the  claims  of  the  apostles,  and  the 
reasons  they  had  for  embracing  these  opportunities.  A  survey  of 
these  circumstances,  viewed  of  course  in  connection  with  the  actual 
success,  the  conversion  of  vast  numbers  of  men  in  every  age,  and 
in  many  different  countries,  from  the  very  time  when  these  claims 
were  first  advanced,  the  testimony  of  converts  whose  writings  have 
come  down  to  us,  the  testimony  which  many  more  gave  by  sub¬ 
mitting  to  martyrdom  for  their  attachment  to  the  cause,  fully 
establish  the  general  proposition.  These  various  topics  form  the 
principal  subjects  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Dr  Chalmers’s  second  book, 
under  the  head  of  Testimony  of  Subsequent  Witnesses,”  where 
they  are  illustrated  with  great  ingenuity  and  power,  and  where 
especially  the  unreasonableness  of  detracting  from  the  weight  of 
the  testimony  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  just  because  they  were 
Christians — '^.6.  because  they  had  renounced  Judaism  or  heathenism ; 
or,  in  other  words,  just  because  they  afforded  the  very  strongest 
presumption  that  they  had  examined  the  subject  with  care,  and 
gave  the  most  conclusive  proof  of  their  integrity  and  sincerity — is 
very  strikingly  illustrated  and  enforced.  This  is  the  proper  place 
also  to  advert  to  a  topic  which  affords  an  important  indirect  con¬ 
firmation  of  the  truth  of  the  claims  of  the  founders  of  Christianity, 
viz.,  the  way  in  which  their  claims  were  met  by  those  who  refused 
to  submit  to  them,  and  especially  the  important  fact,  which  can  be 
conclusively  established,  that  the  Jews  of  the  apostolic  and  the 
immediately  subsequent  age,  and  the  heathen  philosophers  who 
afterwards  came  forward  to  oppose  Christianity,  did  not  deny,  but 
on  the  contrary  admitted,  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  miracles 
performed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

The  second  proposition  which  the  defenders  of  Christianity 
maintain  upon  this  branch  of  the  case  is  this,  that  even  if  we 
were  to  concede  that,  by  some  extraordinary  combination  of 
circumstances,  the  claims  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  might  possibly 
have  been  for  a  time  and  to  some  extent  admitted,  though  not 
well  founded  (you  will  of  course  understand  that  we  are  at  present 
speaking  of  this  branch  of  evidence  as  if  we  had  no  other  and 
better,  leaving  out  of  view,  in  the  meantime,  the  proper  direct 
evidence  on  which  we  mainly  rest,  viz.,  the  testimony  of  the 
original  scriptural  witnesses),  yet  that  the  progressive  advance  of 
the  Christian  religion,  its  rapid  and  extensive  diffusion,  and  its 


204 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


ultimate  ascendancy  over  the  civilised  world,  which  continues 
to  this  day,  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  supposition  of 
its  enjoying  the  special  blessing  and  countenance  of  Him  who 
rules  the  world,  and  has  the  hearts  of  all  men  in  his  hands,  and 
thus  affords  a  proof  that  it  came  from  him,  and  was  designed 
by  him  to  accomplish  his  purposes.  The  confirmation  of  this 
proposition  of  course  requires  an  investigation  of  the  actual 
history  of  the  progress  and  success  of  Christianity,  of  the  diffi¬ 
culties  it  had  to  contend  with,  the  obstacles  it  had  to  surmount, 
of  its  utter  want  of  anything  but  its  truth,  and  the  blessing  of 
God  accompanying  it,  to  recommend  it  to  the  reception  of  men, 
and  its  stern  refusal  to  accommodate,  to  flatter,  or  to  bribe.  All 
these  points,  and  the  conclusion  which  results  from  them  in  favour 
of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  have  been  illustrated  and 
enforced  in  innumerable  works  upon  the  evidences,  and  I  scarcely 
know  any  particular  books  upon  this  subject  that  are  specially 
deserving  of  being  recommended  to  you  in  preference  to  others. 

The  attempts  of  infidels  to  meet  this  argument  from  the  propa¬ 
gation  and  success  of  Christianity  have  been  of  a  twofold  descrip¬ 
tion — first,  to  point  out  certain  circumstances  which  are  alleged 
to  have  greatly  facilitated  and  contributed  to  its  propagation,  to 
insinuate  that  these  explain  the  whole  facts  of  the  case,  and  thus 
to  account  for  its  success  by  natural  causes,  without  the  supposi¬ 
tion  of  the  special  blessing  and  agency  of  God.  This  was  the 
object  of  the  famous  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  Gibbon's 
History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  This, 
like  every  other  attempt  of  infidels,  has  been  answered  and 
exposed,  and  scarcely  in  any  case  has  the  charge  not  only  of 
sophistry,  but  of  dishonesty,  been  more  thoroughly  established. 

The  two  principal  works  in  answer  to  Gibbon  on  the  secondary 
causes  which  contributed  to  the  success  of  Christianity,  are  Bishop 
Watson’s  Apology  for  Christianity,  and  Lord  Hailes’s  (Sir  David 
Dalrymple)  Inquiry,  &c.,  both  works  of  great  merit,  though  of 
very  different  kinds,  Watson’s  being  characterised  by  great  in¬ 
genuity  and  vivacity,  and  Hailes’s  being  distinguished  by  its 
accurate  and  extensive  erudition,  and  the  patient  diligence  and 
pertinacity  with  which  it  hunts  Gibbon  through  all  his  tricks 
and  shufflings,  and  holds  him  up  to  the  scorn  and  contempt  of 
every  honest  and  ingenuous  man.  Gibbon  had  not,  it  seems,  like 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCE. 


205 


Hume,  laid  down  a  resolution  not  to  answer  opponents,  but  to  let 
the  public  judge  between  them  ;  and  accordingly  he  attempted  to 
answer  some  of  the  works  written  against  him,  professing  however 
to  omit  any  reference  to  the  argument  of  the  subject,  and  to  vindi¬ 
cate  himself  only  from  charges  affecting  his  accuracy  and  fidelity 
in  regard  to  quotations  and  references ;  and  yet,  though  Lord 
Hailes  had  dwelt  largely  upon  this  view  of  the  subject,  and  was 
in  many  respects  the  most  considerable  of  his  opponents.  Gibbon 
made  no  attempt  to  answer  his  Inquiry.  He  referred  however 
to  it  in  his  Memoirs,  published  after  his  death,  in  the  following 
terms  :  “  He  scrutinised  each  separate  passage  of  the  two  chapters 
with  the  dry  minuteness  of  a  special  pleader,  and  as  he  was  always 
solicitous  to  make,  he  may  sometimes  have  succeeded  in  finding 
a  flaw.”  He  certainly  made  no  flaws,  but  he  found  many;  and  he 
has  very  conclusively,  though  calmly  and  candidly,  exposed  them. 
Hailes's  Inquiry  is  well  deserving  of  a  perusal,  not  only  as  a  most 
satisfactory  answer  to  Gibbon,  but  also  as  containing  a  considerable 
amount  of  accurate  information  in  regard  to  the  early  history  of 
Christianity,  and  likewise,  more  generally,  as  a  fine  specimen  of 
cautious,  careful,  and  conclusive  discussion ;  and  when  you  have 
read  both  Watson  and  Hailes,  you  will  probably  be  of  opinion 
that  in  regard  to  the  substance  and  the  spirit  of  the  works,  and 
indeed  in  regard  to  everything  but  liveliness  and  vivacity,  the 
Scottish  lawyer  is  entitled  to  as  high  a  place  among  the  defenders 
of  Christianity  as  the  English  bishop. 

The  other  ground  on  which  infidels  have  attempted  to  get  quit 
of  the  argument  for  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  from  its  mar¬ 
vellous  success,  is  by  a  reference  to  the  case  of  Mohammedanism, 
representing  it  as  parallel  to  that  of  Christianity,  and  alleging  that 
if  one  could  gain  an  extensive  prevalence  without  being  true,  and 
without  enjoying  the  approbation  and  peculiar  blessing  of  God,  so 
might  the  other.  And  of  course  the  answer  consists  substantially 
in  establishing  in  detail  the  utter  want  of  anything  like  parallelism 
between  the  two  cases,  especially  as  to  the  totally  different  grounds 
on  which  they  professed  to  rest,  Mohammad  having  never  attempted 
or  pretended  to  perform  any  public  miracles,  the  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  promulgated,  the  means  used  in  propagating 
them,  and  the  relation  in  which  they  stood  respectively  to  the 
natural  appetites,  passions,  and  inclinations  of  men.  This  too  is 


206 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE, 


a  topic  about  which,  though  it  is  not  by  any  means  fundamental, 

you  ought  to  acquire  some  information,  and  one  of  the  best  and 

lullest  works  on  the  subject  is  White’s  Bampton  Lectures,  while 

\ 

there  is  a  very  good  summary  view  of  the  matter,  and  indeed  of 
the  subject  of  the  propagation  of  Christianity  generally,  in  the 
ninth  chapter  of  the  first  part  of  Paley,  and  in  the  first  volume  of 
Horne’s  Introduction. 

We  have  said  that  the  experimental  evidence,  or  that  derived 
from  the  effects  or  results  of  Christianity,  may  be  divided  into  two 
branches — the  one  having  reference  to  and  confirming  the  external 
evidence,  or  the  credibility  of  the  messengers,  the  truth  of  the  claim 
they  advanced  to  be  received  as  divinely  commissioned  teachers  ; 
and  the  other  having  reference  to,  being  based  upon,  and  greatly 
confirming  the  internal  evidence,  or  that  derived  from  the  character 
of  the  actual  revelation  which,  in  their  assumed  capacity  of  divinely 
commissioned  teachers,  they  made  known  to  men.  The  first  of 
these  branches  of  the  subject  is  that  which  we  have  already  briefly 
explained.  It  is  to  the  second,  however,  that  the  term  “  experi¬ 
mental  evidence  ”  is  most  commonly  applied,  and  hence  what  is 
called  the  experimental  is  usually  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
internal  evidence,  and  indeed  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  branch  of 
it ;  but  it  really  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  internal  evidence, 
properly  so  called,  as  the  subject  of  the  success  and  propagation  of 
Christianity  does  to  the  external  evidence.  Christ  and  his  apostles 
put  forth  a  claim  to  be  received  as  divinely  commissioned  teachers  ; 
this  claim  was  established  by  miracles  and  prophecies  ;  these  are 
the  direct  and  proper  grounds  on  which  we  admit  their  claim,  and 
the  investigation  of  this  subject  constitutes  the  department  of  the 
external  evidence  ;  but  the  conviction  of  the  justice  of  their  claim 
to  be  received  as  the  messengers  of  God  is  greatly  strengthened 
when  we  find  that  when  this  claim  was  put  to  the  test,  or  subjected 
to  experiment,  it  stood  the  test,  was  largely  and  extensively 
admitted  in  circumstances  where  there  was  every  opportunity  of 
investigating  and  disproving  it,  and  that  the  religion  based  upon 
it  gained,  in  the  face  of  every  obstacle,  an  ascendancy,  which  it 
still  retains,  over  the  civilised  world.  In  like  manner  these  men 
professed  to  communicate  to  the  world  a  revelation  of  God’s  will, 
directed  to  the  object  of  promoting  the  moral  improvement  and 
the  permanent  happiness  of  the  human  race,  and  this  revelation 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCE. 


207 


has  been  transmitted  us.  When  we  examine  into  its  nature  and 
character,  i.e.  when  we  investigate  the  system  of  doctrine  and 
duties  which  constitute  this  revelation,  we  find  abundant  evidence 
of  its  pre-eminent  excellence.  We  first  of  all  assert  that  it  could 
not  have  been  invented  or  devised  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
viewed  simply  as  men,  unassisted  by  any  superior  power ;  that  it 
could  not  have  proceeded  from  wicked  beings,  and  that  it  is  in 
no  respect  unworthy  of  God;  and  that  therefore  on  all  these  grounds 
we  are  constrained  to  ascribe  it  to  him.  This  constitutes  the 
fundamental  branch  of  the  internal  evidence,  based  upon  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  revelation  itself,  viewed  objectively,  and  by  itself, 
as  existing  in  the  record  which  we  have  of  it.  But  we  may  subject 
the  revelation  itself,  as  well  as  the  claim  put  forth  by  its  first  pro¬ 
mulgators  to  a  divine  commission,  to  the  test  of  experiment,  by 
bringing  it  into  contact  with  the  understandings  and  hearts  of 
men,  observing  whether  or  not,  and  how  far,  it  is  adapted  to  the 
character  and  condition  of  men,  fitted  to  effect  a  moral  transfor¬ 
mation  of  their  natures,  to  raise  them  to  the  highest  attainments 
in  piety  and  holiness;  and  whether  or  not,  and  how  far,  it  has 
actually  succeeded  in  producing  such  results  in  those  who  have 
embraced  and  submitted  to  it.  This  is  what  is  most  commonly 
understood  by  the  experimental  evidence ;  and  it  is  justly,  though, 
as  we  have  endeavoured  to  shew,  not  exclusively,  entitled  to  the 
designation.  It  contemplates  the  revelation  itself  as  to  its  sub¬ 
stance,  and  in  its  relation  to  man’s  moral  character  and  condition, 
and  the  great  object  of  promoting  his  holiness  and  happiness,  put 
to  the  test,  subjected  to  experiment ;  and  the  effect  is  a  very  strong 
confirmation  of  its  divine  origin  to  all  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
examine  into  the  results  of  the  experiment,  and  the  most  conclusive 
of  all  proofs  of  this  to  those  who  have,  by  submitting  to  the 
authority  and  operation  of  the  revelation,  experienced  its  influence 
upon  themselves.  We  have  at  present  to  do  with  this  branch  of 
evidence  chiefly  in  so  far  as  it  admits  of  being  presented  to  the 
understandings  of  men  who  have  not  yet  submitted  their  minds 
and  hearts  to  the  influence  of  the  revelation  itself,  but  who  have 
all,  as  human  beings,  a  conscience  which  conveys  to  them  some 
information,  or  at  least  some  impression,  as  to  what  they  are,  what 
they  need,  and  what  is  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  God. 

The  first  and  most  palpable  aspect  in  which  the  subject  of  the 


208 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


experimental  evidence  derived  from  the  effects  or  results  of  the 
Christian  revelation  may  be  regarded,  is  that  of  the  influence 
which  it  has  exerted  upon  the  general  state  and  condition  of  the 
world,  in  promoting,  wherever  it  has  been  promulgated,  not  only 
civilisation  and  refinement,  but  sounder  views  of  God  and  his 
worship,  and  a  higher  standard  of  morality  and  virtue  than  any 
other  system,  whether  professing  to  have  been  derived  immediately 
from  God  or  not,  has  ever  produced';  and  some  useful  and  interest¬ 
ing  books  have  been  written  upon  this  subject,  particularly  Ryan’s 
History  of  the  Effects  of  Religion,  and  Bishop  Porteous  on  The 
Beneficial  Effects  of '  Christianity.  Infidels  have  sometimes 
adduced  it  as  a  presumption  against  the  divine  origin  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  that  it  has  done  so  little  for  the  improvement  of  the 
human  race;  but  it  is  sufficient  not  only  for  answering  the  objec¬ 
tion,  but  for  affording  a  certain  degree  of  presumption  in  favour  of 
the  truth  of  our  religion,  to  prove,  as  can  be  easily  done — first, 
that  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  God,  and  the  knowledge  and 
practice  of  moral  duty,  have  always  been,  in  countries  where  Chris¬ 
tianity  was  known  and  professed,  greatly  better,  upon  the  whole, 
than  where  it  was  unknown  ;  and  second,  that  in  countries  where 
Christianity  has  been  professed,  there  has  been  always  a  very 
marked  and  decided  superiority  over  all  others  in  moral  character 
and  conduct  exhibited  by  those  who  manifested  the  greatest 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  revelation,  and  the  highest  respect  for 
its  authority. 

This  leads  us  to  advert  to  another  branch  of  the  subject,  which 
is  more  strictly  and  properly  experimental — that,  namely,  derived 
from  the  actual  influence  of  the  Christian  religion  upon  the 
character  and  conduct  of  those  who  have  embraced  it.  This  was 
alluded  to  by  the  apostle  (1  Cor.  vi.  9-11).  Such  changes  as 
these  were  very  frequently  exhibited  in  very  striking  circumstances 
in  primitive  times  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  i.e. 
unfolding  to  men  the  substance  of  the  Christian  revelation,  and 
their  reception  of  it.  These  cases  were  frequently  referred  to  by 
the  Fathers  in  their  defences  of  Christianity  against  opponents, 
and  urged  as  proofs  of  its  divine  origin  and  authority;  and  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  the  argument  derived  from  this  source 
operated,  along  with  others,  in  leading  many  to  embrace  it.  In 
the  condition  in  which  we  are  placed,  the  argument  derived  from 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCE. 


209 


this  source  does  not  stand  out  so  fully  and  so  palpably  to  the 
apprehensions  of  men ;  but  there  are  not  wanting  still  many 
cases  amongst  us  of  the  effects  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  or 
the  reading  of  the  word,  i.e.  of  the  Christian  revelation,  when 
brought  into  contact  with  the  understandings  and  hearts  of  men, 
producing  such  results  upon  their  character  and  conduct  as  should 
not  only  confirm  believers  in  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  their 
religion,  but  may  rationally  impress  the  minds  of  unbelievers,  and 
afford  even  to  them  at  least  a  strong  presumption  that  it  comes 
from  God,  and  is  employed  by  him  for  promoting  the  moral  and 
religious  improvement  of  men  ;  while  the  lives  of  all  true  Christians, 
i.e.  of  all  who  have  really  embraced  the  Christian  revelation,  and 
are  living  under  its  influence,  are  in  some  measure,  and  ought  to 
be  much  more  generally  and  palpably,  an  evidence,  if  fairly  and 
impartially  considered,  that  God  is  in  them  of  a  truth. 

There  is  another  and  a  very  important  topic  comprehended 
under  the  head  of  the  experimental  evidence,  derived  not  from  a 
consideration  of  the  effects  of  the  Christian  revelation  upon  the 
character  and  conduct  of  others,  but  from  the  personal  examination 
of  its  suitableness  to  himself  as  a  human  being,  which  each  man 
may  give  to  the  matter  and  substance  of  the  revelation,  and  from 
the  effects  which  it  has  produced  upon  himself,  when  he  came  to 
understand  and  submit  to  it,  in  changing  his  whole  character  and 
principles,  and  which  it  is  still  producing  upon  him,  in  increasing 
progressively  his  piety  and  holiness,  and  in  guiding  him  to  a  more 
full  and  faithful  discharge  of  all  his  duties  both  to  God  and  to 
man.  The  last  department  of  the  subject  as  now  stated  is  what  is 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  the  witness  which  the  believer  has  in 
himself,  and  it  belongs  principally,  if  not  exclusively,  to  the  depart¬ 
ment  of  evidence  by  which  a  believer  may  be  firmly  and  rationally 
persuaded  in  his  own  mind  that  the  Christian  revelation  came 
from  God,  while  it  does  not  so  fully  admit  of  being  brought  to  bear 
upon  unbelievers,  with  the  view  of  compelling  their  assent  to  this 
truth.  The  whole  of  this  subject,  which  is  comparatively  little 
noticed  in  most  books  on  the  evidences,  is  most  admirably 
expounded  and  illustrated  in  the  third  chapter  of  Dr  Chalmers’s 
third  book,  which  we  will  soon  have  occasion  to  consider,  and  to 
which  I  have  nothing  of  any  importance  to  add. 


o 


210 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


I  have  now  finished  the  outline  or  skeleton  which  I  proposed  to 
lay  before  you  of  the  various  topics  that  may  be  ranked  under 
the  general  head  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity.  I  have  not 
attempted  in  any  case  to  expound  the  arguments  in  their  length 
and  breadth,  but  merely  to  state  to  you  their  general  nature  and 
import,  and  to  unfold  the  connection  of  the  different  branches  of 
the  argument  with  each  other,  to  explain  to  you  what  are  the 
leading  points  to  be  attended  to  in  investigating  each  topic, 
directing  you,  at  the  same  time,  to  some  of  the  best  works  on  each 
head  where  the  best  and  soundest  views  upon  the  subject,  and  the 
information  necessary  in  many  cases  for  fully  understanding  the 
argument,  may  be  found. 

You  have  a  good  deal  to  read  before  you  can  be  regarded  as 
competently  acquainted  with  the  subject  of  the  evidences  of 
Christianity ;  and  it  may  be  of  some  use  to  have  a  general  view 
of  the  whole  subject,  of  its  different  departments,  and  their 
mutual  relations,  that  you  may  thus  be  better  able  to  digest  and 
arrange  the  information  you  may  acquire,  and  see  more  readily 
and  more  distinctly  its  bearing  at  once  upon  the  particular  point 
to  be  proved,  and  upon  the  great  general  result  to  be  established. 

I  intend  now  to  make  a  few  additional  general  observations 
upon  the  classification  of  the  different  branches  of  this  subject, 
suggested  partly  by  some  statements  in  the  portion  of  the  text¬ 
book^  examined  yesterday,  about  the  difficulty  of  settling  the  line 
of  demarcation  between  the  external  and  the  internal  evidences, 
and  about  several  branches  of  the  proof  admitting  of  being 
classed  either  with  the  one  or  the  other,  and  ranking  partly  with 
the  one  and  partly  with  the  other.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
there  is  some  difficulty  in  drawing  the  line  of  demarcation 
correctly  between  them,  and  that  at  some  points  they  may 
touch  and  mutually  rest  the  one  upon  the  other;  but  I  am 
disposed  to  think  that  there  are  some  of  the  difficulties  there 
mentioned  by  Dr  Chalmers,  as  to  adjusting  the  line  between 
them,  that  arise  from  misapprehension,  and  may  be  somewhat 
cleared  up. 

In  order  to  have  a  clear  and  correct  view  of  the  various  topics 
comprehended  under  the  great  general  head  of  the  evidences, 
there  are  some  important  distinctions  to  be  attended  to,  which 
*  Dr  Chalmers’s  Evidences,  hook  iii.  chap.  i.  pp.  1-13,  vol.  ii. 


DISTINCTIONS. 


211 


liave  been  already  referred  to,  but  which,  for  the  sake  of  clear¬ 
ness,  may  now  be  summarily  stated  together. 

1.  We  must  distinguish  between  the  evidence  by  which  an 
unbeliever  may  be  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  reve¬ 
lation,  and  that  by  which  a  believer,  i.e.  not  merely  a  professing 
Christian,  but  one  who  has  really  submitted  his  understanding 
and  his  heart  to  the  revelation  itself,  may  be  confirmed  and 
strengthened  in  his  conviction.  All  that  is  rationally  available 
for  convincing  an  infidel  may  also  be  rightly  applied  by  a 
believer  for  strengthening  and  confirming  his  faith,  if  he  should 
be  assaulted  by  any  temptations  to  infidelity ;  but,  in  addition  to 
all  this,  the  believer  has  sources  of  proof  in  what  he  has  seen  and 
heard,  felt  and  experienced,  which  may  most  rationally  confirm 
him  in  his  conviction  that  this  revelation  came  from  God,  but 
which  might  be  of  little  or  no  avail  for  impressing  an  infidel,  i.e. 
which  the  infidel  could  not  be  logically  compelled,  by  any  common 
and  mutually  recognised  principles,  to  admit  as  valid  and 
satisfactory. 

2.  We  must  distinguish  between  the  truth  of  Christianity 
and  the  proof  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture. 
If  the  Bible  be  the  word  of  God,  then  of  course  Christianity  is 
true,  and  everything  that  proves  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  equally  proves  the  truth  of  Christianity  ;  but  it  does 
i]ot  hold  that  if  Christianity  be  true,  the  Bible  is  the  word  of 
God,  or  that  the  proofs  of  the  first  go  directly,  and  without  any 
other  intermediate  step  in  the  process  of  argument,  to  prove  the 
second.  It  might  possibly  be  true  that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  commissioned  by  God  to  reveal  his  will  to  men ;  that  they 
had  communicated  a  revelation,  i.e.  a  system  of  doctrine  and  duty 
in  his  name ;  and  that  this  revelation  had  been  handed  down  to 
us,  while  yet  everything  connected  with  the  transmission  of  it 
might  have  been  left  to  the  ordinary  channels,  and  the  operation 
of  the  ordinary  influences  by  which  important  information  is 
usually  transmitted,  without  divine  agency  having  been  brought 
to  bear  supernaturally  upon  the  composition  of  the  whole  books 
in  which  it  is  contained.  When  we  undertake  to  prove  that  the 
New  Testament  not  only  contains  or  embodies,  but  actually  is 
itself  a  revelation  from  God,  and  is  invested  with  divine  authority, 
we  must  establish  something  above  and  beyond  what  is  implied 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


212 

in  the  assertion  that  Christianity  is  true,  or  that  the  system  of 
doctrine  and  duty  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  actually 
promulgate  among  men  came  from  God.  A.n  extension  of  the 
argument  is  necessary  when  the  point  to  be  proved  is  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Bible ;  and,  moreover,  there  is  a  class  at  once 
of  additional  proofs  in  confirmation,  and  of  additional  objections 
to  be  answered,  which  do  not  bear  directly  upon  the  question  of 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  and  hence  the  necessity,  in 
disposing  and  arranging  the  proof — and  this  is  the  topic  we 
are  at  present  considering — of  distinguishing  between  these  two 
questions. 

In  considering  the  way  in  which  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  or  the  divine  origin  of  the  scheme  of  doctrine  and  duty 
promulgated  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  may  be  established,  it  has 
been  common  to  divide  the  evidence  into  external  and  internal. 
It  has  been  customary  to  regard  the  experimental  evidence  as 
being  either  a  branch  of  the  internal  or  an  appendage  to  it.  I 
think  it  better  to  make  a  separate  division  for  the  experimental ; 
and  chiefly  because,  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  explain  to  you, 
there  is  a  branch  of  evidence  that  may  be  fairly  designated  by 
that  name  which  stands  in  very  much  the  same  relation  to  the 
external,  as  what  is  more  commonly  called  the  experimental  does 
to  the  internal. 

And  then,  in  regard  to  the  general  distinction  between  the 
external  and  the  internal,  this  is  sufficiently  plain,  and  is  clearly 
explained  and  accurately  expressed  in  the  introductory  paragraphs 
to  Chalmers’s  second  book,  by  the  distinction  between  the  messen¬ 
gers  and  the  message  which  they  bear.  The  external  evidence  is 
directed  to  the  object  of  establishing  the  credibility  of  the  messen¬ 
gers  ;  and  if  this  can  be  proved  to  be  valid  and  conclusive,  we  are 
placed  in  the  position  of  being  persuaded  that  these  men  were 
commissioned  by  God  to  make  known  his  will,  and  are  thus  fully 
prepared,  even  before  hearing  their  message,  for  receiving  any 
message  they  may  communicate  to  us  as  coming  from  God.  When 
we  have  heard  the  message  itselfi — i.e.  not,  strictly  speaking,  and 
in  the  first  instance,  the  Bible,  but  the  general  system  of  doctrine 
and  duty  promulgated  by  Christ  and  his  apostles — we  then  examine 
it  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  it  contains  within  itself, 
in  its  own  nature  and  substance,  any  clear  indications  that  it  was 


DISTINCTIONS. 


213 


not  devised  by  men,  and  more  especially  not  by  those  who  com¬ 
municated  it  to  the  world,  and  that  it  must  have  come  from  God ; 
and  the  investigation  of  this  subject  constitutes  the  internal  evi¬ 
dence.  Now,  this  distinction  between  the  external  and  the 
internal  is  clear  and  palpable,  and  may,  we  think,  be  preserved 
entire  and  unbroken  throughout  the  whole  discussion,  except 
only  at  one  point.  There  is  a  difficulty  in  proving  that  miracles, 
wffiich  form  the  ground  or  basis  of  the  external  evidence,  or  of 
the  proof  of  the  credibility  of  the  messengers,  can  be  wrought  by 
God  only,  and  are  therefore  at  once  directly  and  of  themselves 
proof  that  his  authority  is  interposed  in  the  matter ;  or,  what  is 
virtually  the  same  thing,  it  is  conceded  by  many  of  the  ablest 
defenders  of  Christianity  that  doctrines  might  be  promulgated 
and  precepts  enjoined  which  no  miracles  could  prove  to  have 
come  from  God.  And  hence  the  necessity,  before  the  argument 
from  miracles  or  the  external  evidence  can  be  thoroughly  estab¬ 
lished,  of  so  far  drawing  upon  the  department  of  internal  evi¬ 
dence,  or  the  character  of  the  message  and  contents  of  the 
revelation,  as  at  least  to  shew  that  it  contains  nothing  which 
could  not  have  come  from  God,  nothing  which  of  itself  disproves 
its  claim  to  a  divine  origin.  At  this  point  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  the  external  and  the  internal  evidence  must  be  over¬ 
stepped,  but  at  every  other  point  it  may  be  clearly  defined  and 
rigidly  adhered  to. 

Another  view  of  the  distinction  between  the  external  and  the 
internal  evidence  has  been  suggested,  and  it  is  stated,  though 
only  hypothetically,  by  Dr  Chalmers^ :  “  If  it  be  meant  of  the 
external  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Bible  that  they  are  such  as 
are  gathered  from  places  without  the  book,  and  of  the  internal, 
that  they  are  gathered  from  places  within  the  book,  it  will  be 
found  of  its  largest  and  strongest  evidence  that  it  comes  not  pro¬ 
perly  or  fully  under  either  the  one  head  or  the  other.”  This  state¬ 
ment  is  undoubtedly  true  upon  the  assumed  definition  of  the 
distinction ;  but  then  this  definition  is  not  the  same  as  that  which 
is  usually  applied  to  the  distinction  between  the  external  and  the 
internal,  and  which  Dr  Chalmers  himself  had  formerly  explained 
as  based  upon  the  difference  between  the  credibility  of  the 
messengers  and  the  intrinsic  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  message  ; 

^  Chap.  i.  book  hi.  p.  8,  vol.  ii. 


214 


SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 


it  is  a  distinction  applicable  properly,  as  indeed  he  says,  not  to 
the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  to  the  divine  origin 
of  the  Bible,  and  it  thus  disregards  a  distinction  which  we  formerly 
explained  and  enforced ;  and  it  is  a  distinction,  moreover,  which 
has  seldom  if  ever  been  made  by  writers  upon  this  subject,  and 
which  serves  no  good  and  useful  purpose  whatever.  Dr  Chalmers 
has  shewn  that  if  this  definition  of  the  distinction  between  the 
external  and  the  internal  evidence  be  adopted,  it  involves  in 
inextricable  confusion  any  attempt  to  run  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  them  ;  and  therefore  it  would  be  much  better  to  drop  it 
altogether,  and  to  adhere  to  the  distinction  generally  understood 
and  recognised,  and  previously  adopted  by  himself,  between  the 
credibility  of  the  messengers  and  the  intrinsic  evidence  of  the 
message  itself,  as  constituting  the  proper  difference  between  the 
external  and  the  internal  evidences.  The  internal  evidence  is 
indeed  derived  exclusively  from  what  is  contained  in  the  Bible, 
because  we  cannot  ascertain  certainly  from  any  other  source  what 
the  message  is  ;  but  then  the  external  evidence,  though  strictly 
confined,  according  to  the  proper  definition  of  it,  to  the  object  of 
establishing  the  credibility  of  the  messengers,  cannot  be  brought 
out  and  established  except  by  drawing  also  largely  upon  what  is 
contained  in  the  Bible  itself.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
in  dealing  with  what  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  while  we  are  dis¬ 
cussing  the  external  evidence  or  establishing  the  credibility  of  the 
messengers,  we  do  not  contemplate  it  as  either  being  or  containing 
a  divine  revelation — i.e.  a  general  system  of  doctrine  or  duty — but 
simply  as  a  collection  of  historical  documents,  the  declarations  of 
the  parties,  the  testimony  given  by  them  and  concerning  them, 
and  generally  the  materials  from  which  we  may  determine  the 
question  whether  or  not  they  spoke  the  truth  when  they  laid  down 
this  fundamental,  and  yet  in  a  certain  sense  preliminary  or  pre¬ 
paratory  position,  viz.,  that  they  were  commissioned  by  God  to 
make  known  his  will ;  in  short,  we  may  make  use  of  the  books 
of  Scripture  in  the  first  instance,  and  when  examining  the  ex¬ 
ternal  evidence,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  the 
message  was,  but  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  who  and  what 
the  men  were  who  brought  it,  what  claims  they  advanced,  and 
what  evidence  they  adduced  in  support  of  these  claims. 

The  crossing  and  confusion,  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  the  line 


DISTINCTIOKS. 


215 


between  the  external  and  the  internal,  which  Dr  Chalmers  has 
described  and  exposed,  arise  wholly  from  his  introducing  a  differ¬ 
ent  definition  of  what  external  and  internal  mean — a  definition 
that  serves  no  purpose  whatever  but  just  to  produce  this  con¬ 
fusion,  instead  of  adhering  to  the  generally  recognised  and  intelli¬ 
gible  distinction  between  the  proof  of  the  credibility  of  the 
messengers  and  the  intrinsic  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  message 
— a  distinction  which,  except  in  the  one  point-  above  explained, 
can  be  fully  followed  out  without  crossing  and  without  confusion. 

When  these  principles  and  distinctions  are  kept  in  view,  it 
becomes  no  very  difficult  matter  to  see  how  the  different  mate¬ 
rials  that  rank  under  the  general  head  of  the  evidences  ought  to 
be  classified  and  arranged ;  and  we  venture  to  think  that  the 
arrangement  of  these  topics  which  we  have  sketched  in  some  pre¬ 
ceding  lectures  commends  itself  as  being  at  once  the  most  natural 
and  obvious,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  logical  and  correct. 


\ 


LECTURE  XVII. 


LITERAEY  HISTOEY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  —  FATHEES  — 
VIYES,  MOENi^Y,  GEOTIUS,  HUET,  BAXTEE,  OWEN, 
STILLINGFLEET. 


IN  giving  you  a  brief  outline  of  the  different  topics  which  enter 
into  the  general  subject  of  the  Christian  evidences,  with  the 
view  especially  of  explaining  their  connection  and  relations,  and 
directing  your  attention  to  what  the  points  are  which  ought 
chiefly  to  be  considered  under  each  head,  I  have  commonly  taken 
the  opportunity  of  referring  under  each  division  to  some  of  the 
books  which  it  might  be  useful  to  you  to  peruse,  for  the  purpose 
of  procuring  further  information,  having  respect  in  the  selection 
of  the  works  recommended  at  once  to  the  worth  and  value  of  the 
books,  and  to  their  accessibility,  or  their  being  such  as  might 
probably  be  within  your  reach.  I  must  repeat  what  I  have 
already  told  you  more  than  once,  that  you  cannot  be  regarded  as 
competently  acquainted  with  the  evidences  of  Christianity, 
unless,  in  addition  to  what  you  may  learn  from  the  text-book  and 
lectures,  you  read  a  good  deal  upon  the  subject.  In  running 
over  the  evidences,  I  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  advert  to 
topics  where  the  argument  depended  essentially  upon  the  details 
of  historical  proof  to  be  found  more  or  less  fully  in  the  different 
works  which  treat  of  the  evidences,  and  with  which  of  course  it 
was  necessary  for  you,  that  you  might  understand  the  subject,  to 
make  yourselves  acquainted  by  reading.  There  is  a  vast  field  of 
literature  comprehended  under  the  head  of  the  evidences,  and  it 
is  with  only  a  very  small  portion  of  the  works  upon  this  subject 
that  you  can,  at  the  present  stage  of  your  studies,  make  your¬ 
selves  familiar.  You  should  in  general  make  it  a  rule  to  read  and 


LITERARY  HISTORY, 


217 


study  books,  according  as  you  may  have  leisure  and  opportunity, 
upon  the  subjects  which  are  at  the  time  occupying  our  attention 
in  the  class,  making  it  your  object  as  much  as  possible,  by  reading 
and  reflection,  to  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  each  topic 
as  it  passes  in  review  before  you,  and  not  to  let  it  pass  until  you 
have  formed  a  clear  and  distinct  conception  of  its  meaning,  bear¬ 
ing,  and  value,  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  the  difficulties  with 
which  it  may  be  attended,  and  the  way  and  manner  in  which  these 
difficulties  are  to  be  solved  or  removed.  All  this  you  must  do  if 
you  would  be  fully  and  intelligently  acquainted  with  this  subject, 
and  you  must  do  it  each  one  for  himself,  because  no  other  can  do 
it  for  you. 

It  may  not  be  unprofitable  or  uninteresting  to  lay  before  you 
now  a  brief  notice  of  some  of  the  leading  points  in  the  literary 
history  of  the  subject  of  the  evidences,  and  then  subjoin  some 
observations  that  may  contribute  to  assist  you  in  your  future 
study  of  it.  In  turning  our  thoughts  to  the  subject  of  the  literary 
history  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  our  attention  is  naturally 
directed,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  way  in  which  the  first  promul¬ 
gators  of  Christianity,  and  their  followers  in  primitive  times, 
defended  its  divine  origin  and  authority  against  those  who  denied 
or  questioned  its  claims.  The  early  Fathers  had  to  defend  the 
Christian  religion  against  the  calumnies  with  which  it  was  assailed, 
to  plead  for  toleration  upon  the  ground  that  there  was  no  suffi¬ 
cient  reason  in  their  doctrines  or  in  their  conduct  why  they  should 
be  persecuted,  and  to  defend  their  religion  against  the  objections 
both  of  Jews  and  heathens;  and  some  of  the  works  which  they 
wrote  and  published  for  these  purposes  have  come  down  to  us. 
The  principal  are — Justin  Martyr,  A  thenagoras,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Minucius  Felix,  Arnobius,  Lactantius,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
Most  of  them  are  valuable  and  interesting  rather  in  a  historical 
than  in  an  argumentative  point  of  view — i.e.  rather  for  the 
information  they  give  us,  directly  or  incidentally,  about  the  views, 
conduct,  and  condition  of  the  primitive  Christians  and  the  early 
church,  than  because  they  contain  many  specimens  of  what  would 
now  be  reckoned  very  close  and  conclusive  reasoning  in  support 
of  the  cause  they  advocated.  The  main  grounds  indeed  on  which 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  is  based — viz.,  miracles  and 
prophecy — are  brought  forward  and  illustrated,  and  especially  the 


218 


SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 


latter,  because  the  Jews  and  Pagans  of  those  days  admitted  the 
reality  of  our  Saviour’s  miracles,  the  excellence  of  the  Christian 
religion  as  compared  with  Judaism  and  Paganism  is  enlarged 
upon,  and  its  proved  efficacy  in  changing  and  improving  men’s 
character,  and  its  tendency  to  promote  the  interests  of  morality 
and  the  general  welfare  of  society  are  amply  set  forth.  Still  the 
writings  of  the  ancient  apologists  for  Christianity  do  not  contain 
a  great  deal  that  can  be  of  much  direct  use  in  dealing  with  the 
more  subtle  and  intricate  objections  which  modern  infidels  have 
raised.  But  it  is  important  to  observe — first,  that  they  contain 
nothing  which  can  be  said  to  afford  any  plausible  handle  against 
the  truth  of  Christianity — nothing  indeed  but  what  has  the 
strongest  and  most  direct  tendency  to  confirm  our  conviction  of 
the  perfect  sincerity  of  their  authors,  and  of  their  full  knowledge 
of  the  grounds  on  which  they  acted  when  they  renounced  J udaism 
or  Paganism,  and  joined  the  Christian  church ;  and  second,  that 
the  information  which  they  give  us  about  the  state  and  condition 
of  the  early  church  tends  wholly  to  confirm  our  confidence  in  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  and  in  the  validity  of  the  arguments  by 
which  it  is  established,  and  may  still  be  most  legitimately  and 
usefully  applied  by  us  for  that  purpose.  Some  of  these  apologies 
were  addressed  to  the  Roman  authorities,  to  the  emperor  and  the 
senate — a  fact  which  affords  a  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  the 
statements  they  contain,  as  it  is  most  improbable  that,  even  if 
their  principles  and  characters  had  allowed  them  to  misrepresent, 
they  would  commit  themselves  by  stating  in  such  circumstances 
anything  that  could  be  disproved. 

There  is  another  class  of  these  early  defences  of  Christianity  to 
which  an  additional  value  is  given  from  a  different  circumstance, 
viz.,  that  they  were  answers  to  attacks  made  by  men  of  talent 
and  learning  upon  Christianity,  and  thus  shew  us  the  grounds 
on  which  it  was  then  assailed,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
then  defended  from  assaults.  And  it  is  for  this  reason,  as  well  as 
because  of  the  talents  and  learnings  of  the  men,  that  Origen’s 
reply  to  Celsus,  Eusebius’s  PrcEparatio  and  Demonstratio 
Evangelica,  and  his  book  against  Hierocles,  and  Cyril  of 
Alexandria’s  answer  to  the  work  of  the  Emperor  Julian  the 
apostate,  are  commonly  regarded  as  being  upon  the  whole  the 
most  valuable  works  bearing  directly  upon  the  truth  and  divine 


LITERARY  HISTORY, 


219 


origiu  of  Christianity  which  came  down  to  us  from  early  times, 
although  of  Cyril’s,  it  might  perhaps  be  said  with  justice  that  its 
value  now  rests  quite  as  much  upon  the  extracts  it  has  preserved 
from  the  lost  writings  of  the  imperial  apostate  a,s  upon  anything 
of  his  own.  From  the  important  and  valuable  use  that  may  be 
and  has  been  made  in  the  Christian  argument  of  the  concessions 
of  its  earliest  opponents,  and  generally  of  the  way  in  which  they 
conducted  their  attack  upon  our  religion,  and  especially  from 
their  affording  materials  for  establishing  the  genuineness  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  truth  of  the  leading  facts 
which  they  record,  the  defenders  of  Christianity  have  been  often 
tempted  to  express  their  regret  that  their  works  have  not  come 
down  to  us,  and  that  in  general  we  know  them  only  from  the 
extracts  preserved  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers.^ 
Many  of  the  answers  made  to  these  attacks  of  infidels  have 
perished  also,  and  some  which,  from  what  we  find  said  about 
them  by  those  who  had  read  them,  would  have  been  very 
interesting  and  valuable.  The  works  of  Porphyry,  for  example, 
a  celebrated  philosopher  who  flourished  soon  after  the  middle  of 
the  third  century,  and  wrote  a  treatise  against  Christianity,  is 
lost ;  and  as  the  only  formal  answers  to  it  by  three  eminent 
fathers,  Methodius,  Eusebius,  and  Apollinarius,  are  lost  also,  we 
know  nothing  of  the  grounds  upon  which  Porphyry  assailed 
Christianity,  except  from  some  incidental  references  to  his 
arguments  in  other  Fathers.  Apollinarius’s  answer  to  Porphyry 
was  greatly  admired,  and  we  have  much  reason  to  regret  the  loss 
of  it  if  the  eulogium  was  merited  pronounced  upon  the  author 
and  the  work  by  Vincentius  of  Lirins,  who  lived  in  the  fifth 
century,  when  the  work  was  extant,  in  his  famous  Covimonitorium 
in  defence  of  tradition,  a  work  which  has  been  always  in  great 
favour  with  Papists  and  High  Churchmen  (re-published  at 
Oxford): — Quid  illo  prsestantius  acumine,  exercitatius  doctrina, 
quam  multas  ille  haereses  multis  voluminibus  oppresserit,  quot 
inimicos  fidei  confutaverit  errores,  indicio  est  opus  illud  tri- 
ginta  non  minus  librorum  nobilissimum  ac  maximum  quo 

BuddcBUS  Miscellanea  Sacra,  part  i. ;  Dlssertatio  de  Veritate  Christianoi 
Religionis  Philosophorum  ohtrectationihiis  Confirmata,  pp.  378-380  ;  Huet,  Intro¬ 
duction  to  the  Neiv  Testament,  part  i.  chap.  i.  sec.  8,  p.  31  ;  Norton’s  Evidence 
of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  part  ii.  chap.  i.  pp.  124-130. 


220 


SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 


insanas  Porphyrii  calumnias  magna  probationum  mole  confodit’’ 
(chap.  16). 

From  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  upon  the  apologetic 
works  of  the  Fathers  you  will  see  that  I  am  of  opinion  that,  how¬ 
ever  interesting  and  valuable  they  are  in  many  respects,  and  how¬ 
ever  useful  some  of  the  information  they  contain  is  in  confirming 
some  of  the  positions  usually  occupied  in  conducting  the  Christian 
argument,  and  however  necessary  it  may  be  for  one  who  wishes  to 
investigate  for  himself  this  subject  in  all  its  parts  and  aspects  to 
read  them,  they  are  scarcely  of  sufficient  importance  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  object  which  alone  you  can  at  present  expect  to  be 
able  to  accomplish,  viz.,  acquiring  a  general  knowledge  of  the  main 
grounds  on  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  may  be  and  should  be 
now  established,  to  render  it  worth  your  while  to  spend  any  time 
in  the  perusal  of  them  at  this  stage  of  your  studies. 

The  subject  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  was  very  little  discussed 
from  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Julian  down  till  the  period  of  the 
Reformation.  About  that  time  a  class  of  men  arose  who  assumed 
the  name  of  Deists,  and  who  under  that  name  continued  to  oppose 
Christianity,  and  to  labour  to  disprove  its  divine  origin  till  the 
present  day.  This  soon  led  to  controversial  discussion,  and  in  the 
age  of  the  Reformation  two  works  were  published  in  defence  of 
Christianity  which  may  be  regarded  as  still  worthy  of  notice — one 
by  a  Papist,  a  well-known  scholar,  Ludovicus  Yives,  and  another 
by  a  celebrated  champion  of  Protestantism,  Mornay  du  Plessis. 
Vives’s  book,  entitled  De  Veritate  Fidei  Christiance,  being  pub¬ 
lished  in  1543,  and  Mornay’s,  entitled  De  Veritate  Religionis 
Christiance,  which  appeared  also  at  the  same  time  in  French,  and 
was  soon  after  translated  into  English,  being  published  in  1579. 
Both  these  works  contain  a  good  deal  of  discussion  upon  topics 
which  are  not  now  usually  comprehended  under  the  head  of  the 
evidences,  as  they  profess  not  merely  to  establish  the  leading  doc¬ 
trines  of  natural  religion,  but  also  take  up  all  the  leading  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  revelation,  defend  them  from  objections,  point  out 
their  excellence  and  usefulness,  and  labour  to  confirm  them  by 
arguments  drawn  from  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  testimonies  of 
heathen  authors.  It  is  one  of  the  great  improvements  made  in 
more  modern  times  in  the  method  of  conducting  the  defence  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  that  the  distinction  has  been  much  better 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


901 

X. 

preserved  than  was  formerly  common  between  the  evidences  of 
revelation  and  the  contents  or  substance  of  revelation ;  and  that 
the  investigation  of  the  direct  and  proper  proof  of  the  divine  com¬ 
mission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  is  not  now  usually  so  much 
encumbered  as  it  used  to  be  with  a  defence  of  the  reasonableness 
of  all  the  doctrines  which  they  taught  in  God’s  name.  It  is  indeed 
quite  true,  as  we  have  shewn  you,  that  it  is  impossible  to  omit  all 
reference  to  the  contents  or  substance  of  the  revelation  in  deciding 
upon  the  evidence  in  support  of  its  truth,  and  that  it  is  quite 
practicable  to  deduce  from  an  examination  of  the  system  of  doc¬ 
trines  and  duties  which  may  be  said  to  constitute  the  Christian 
revelation,  and  that  too  without  indulging  in  any  presumptuous 
speculation,  a  proof,  if  not  directly  and  at  once  that  it  came  from 
God,  at  least  of  what  leads  by  a  single  step  to  that  conclusion,  that 
it  could  not  have  been  invented  or  devised  by  men.  Still  it  is 
true  that  there  is  a  broad  line  of  distinction  between  the  evidence 
of  revelation  and  the  contents  of  revelation,  that  it  is  highly  expe¬ 
dient  that  this  distinction  should  be  much  more  carefully  pre¬ 
served  than  it  was  by  any  of  the  older  writers  on  the  evidences ; 
and  that  in  dealing  with  objections  adduced  against  the  contents 
of  revelation,  though  the  general  relevancy  of  such  objections  is 
admitted,  much  more  use  should  be  made  than  has  often  been  done 
of  the  natural  incapacity  of  men  to  judge  fully  of  the  matters 
which  these  objections  respect,  aud  of  the  submission  and  obedience 
justly  due  to  what  has  been  proved  upon  its  own  appropriate 
evidence — evidence  unassailable  upon  its  own  proper  ground — to 
be  a  divine  communication.  These  considerations  were  not  much 
attended  to  by  many  of  the  older  writers,  and  accordingly  we  find 
both  in  Vives  and  Mornay,  along  with  much  good  and  useful 
matter,  elaborate  attempts,  not  only  to  defend  from  objections  all 
the  leading  doctrines  of  Christianity  (even  in  regard  to  those  which 
are  matter  of  pure  revelation),  but  to  confirm  and  establish  their 
truth  by  arguments  drawn  from  natural  reason  and  testimonies 
from  old  Pagan  authors. 

Grotius’s  celebrated  work.  Be  Veritate  Religionis  Christiance, 
first  published  in  1627,  though  the  notes  which  form  so  large  a 
portion  of  it  were  not  added  till  several  years  afterwards,  forms  an 
important  era  in  the  history  of  the  literature  of  this  subject.  It 
was  translated,  not  only  into  almost  all  the  languages  of  Europe, 


909 


SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 


but  also  into  tlie  Arabic  and  the  Malay,  at  the  expense  of  the  cele¬ 
brated  Robert  Boyle.  It  has  always  continued  to  be  a  standard  work. 
It  has  exerted  an  extensive  and,  upon  the  whole,  a  wholesome 
influence  upon  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  been  usually  discussed,  and  therefore,  though,  it  does 
not  contain  a  great  deal  of  general  or  abstract  discussion,  it  is 
still  well  deserving  of  a  perusal.  It  gave  a  much  more  lucid  and 
better  digested  summary  of  what  was  indispensable  in  establishing 
the  truth  of  Christianity,  with  the  intermixture  of  very  little  that 
is  extraneous  and  useless,  than  any  work  that  had  previously 
appeared,  and  thus  tended  largely  to  guide  the  thoughts  and 
investigations  of  subsequent  writers  upon  this  subject  into  the 
proper  channel.  Of  the  six  books  of  which  it  is  composed,  three, 
though  much  the  shortest,  are  directed  to  the  object  of  exposing 
the  claims  of  Paganism,  Mohammedanism,  Judaism  ;  and  indeed 
it  was  long  common  to  have  something  on  these  topics  in  most 
works  that  professed  to  treat  of  the  whole  subject  of  the  evidences. 
In  more  modern  works  the  discussion  of  these  topics  has  been 
commonly  omitted,  upon  the  ground  thus  stated  by  Paley,  in  the 
beginning  of  his  Prefatory  Considerations,  that  “  really  the 
question  lies  between  the  Christian  religion  and  none,  for  that  if 
the  Christian  religion  be  not  credible,  no  one  with  whom  we  have 
to  do  will  support  the  pretensions  of  any  other.’'  Grotius,  who 
was  a  man  of  vast  erudition,  as  well  as  of  great  talent,  has  in  his 
notes  a  great  many  interesting  quotations  from  ancient  heathen 
authors,  but  then  he  applies  them  much  more  judiciously  than 
previous  writers,  such  as  Vives  and  Mornay,  had  done ;  not  as  they 
did,  in  defence  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which 
ought  to  rest  upon  the  authority  of  the  revelation,  but  in  confir¬ 
mation  of  the  principal  doctrines  of  natural  religion,  to  which  his 
first  book  is  directed,  and  of  the  leading  facts  recorded  in  the 
Bible  history,  and  especially  in  the  Old  Testament.  His  second 
book  is  directed  to  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the 
third  to  that  of  the  integrity  and  divine  authority  of  the  books  of 
Scripture;  and  thus  a  distinction,  which  we  have  attempted  to  shew 
you  is  of  some  importance  in  order  to  a  clear  and  correct  arrange¬ 
ment  and  classification  of  the  evidences,  but  which  has  been 
neglected  by  many  subsequent  writers,  has  been  fully  preserved. 
Before  proceeding  to  notice  some  of  the  leading  features  of 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


223 


the  history  of  this  subject  as  applicable  to  works  in  our  own 
language,  which  is  peculiarly  rich  in  the  department  of  the 
evidences,  or  of  what  is  sometimes  called  the  Deistical  controversy, 
I  must  notice  a  work  which  I  formerly  recommended  to  you  when 
speaking  of  the  subject  of  prophecy,  viz.,  Huet  or  Huetius's 
Demonstratio  Evangelica.  It  is  a  Latin  quarto,  though  there 
are  editions  in  other  forms,  and  was  first  published  in  1C79.  Its 
author  was  a  prelate  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  France  ;  and 
there  are  several  things  about  it  which  distinguish  it  fmm  the 
common  mass  of  works  upon  the  evidences,  and  render  it  worthy  of 
special  notice.  It  is  a  book  of  very  superior  talent,  and  very  extra¬ 
ordinary  erudition.  One  rather  remarkable  compliment  was  paid 
to  it  when  it  was  first  published.  Pufiendorf,  the  celebrated  jurist 
and  historian,  who  was  a  Protestant,  and  had  given  much  attention 
to  some  departments  of  theological  study,  wrote  to  the  author 
after  reading  the  Demonstratio  Evangelica,  expressing  his  pro¬ 
found  admiration  of  the  work,  and  the  delight  with  which  he  had 
read  it,  setting  forth  his  conviction  that  Huet  was  peculiarly  fitted 
by  his  talent  and  learning,  his  candour  and  fairness,  to  write  a 
work  upon  general  theology,  that  might  tend  to  unite  the  Protest¬ 
ants  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  urging  him  to  undertake  it. 
Huet  shrank  from  this  task,  and  well  he  might.  It  is  much 
easier  to  write  a  learned  and  ingenious  book  in  defence  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  than  to  form  an  alliance  between  light 
and  darkness,  Christ  and  Belial.  Puffendorf  lived  to  change 
his  views  upon  this.  In  addition  to  the  intrinsic  merit  of  the 
book,  it  is  interesting  to  see  the  subject  discussed  by  a  learned 
Romanist,  and  to  notice  how,  notwithstanding  the  allegation  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  that  men  can  know  nothing  certainly  about 
the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
except  from  and  through  the  church,  its  ablest  and  most  learned 
men  do,  in  point  of  fact,  when  called  upon  to  discuss  the  subject, 
establish  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  authority  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  just  as  a  Protestant  would  do,  because  there  is  no  other- 
rational  mode  of  doing  it  when  you  have  to  deal  with  men  who  do 
not  admit  the  authority  of  the  church.  One  great  merit  of  Huet’s 
work  is,  that  he  adheres  rigidly,  and  in  so  far  as  I  know  or  recol¬ 
lect  is  the  first  who  does  so,  to  the  distinction  between  the  evi¬ 
dences  and  the  contents  of  revelation,  entering  into  no  speculations 


224  SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 

in  defence  of  the  reasonableness  and  truth  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  and  confining  himself  rigidly  to  the  proof  of  the  position, 
that  Jesus  was  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  and  was  the 
Messiah  promised  to  the  fathers.  He  enters  indeed  very  fully 
into  the  subject  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  books 
of  Scripture  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  but  then  he 
deals  with  them  simply  as  they  ought  to  be  dealt  with  at  this 
stage  of  the  argument,  as  a  collection  of  historical  documents  which 
shew  what  events  took  place,  what  testimony  was  given,  and  in 
what  circumstances,  what  predictions  were  delivered,  and  how  they 
were  fulfilled. 

Huet  is  at  some  pains  to  collect  the  references  to  each  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  be  found  in  the  subsequent  books 
of  the  same  collection,  an  important  object  which  Dr  Chalmers 
has  very  fully  prosecuted  in  his  chapter  on  The  Canon.”  He  has 
an  extraordinary  display  of  erudition  in  collecting  from  all  profane 
authors  everything  in  history,  mythology,  and  religious  rites  and 
ceremonies  that  bears  any  resemblance  to  what  we  find  in  the 
Mosaic  history,  and  may  be  supposed  to  be  derived  from  it,  and 
thus  to  afford  some  confirmation  of  its  antiquity  and  truth ;  and  he 
gives,  as  I  formerly  mentioned,  as  full  an  exhibition  as  is  anywhere 
to  be  met  with  of  the  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  concerning 
Christ,  and  their  fulfilment  in  parallel  passages  of  the  New.  In 
both  these  departments  the  ingenuity  of  the  author  sometimes 
oversteps  the  bounds  of  wisdom — i.e.  he  finds  resemblances  to  the 
Mosaic  history  in  profane  authors  where  probably  no  real  resem¬ 
blance  exists ;  and  some  of  the  passages  he  quotes  from  the  Old 
Testament  as  predictions  were  not  intended  as  predictions,  and  of 
course  were  not,  properly  speaking,  fulfilled  in  the  parallel  ones  he 
adduces  from  the  New.  But  still  the  work  is  undoubtedly,  for  the 
reasons  that  have  been  mentioned,  entitled  to  special  notice  as 
greatly  superior,  in  point  of  value  and  importance,  to  the  ordinary 
mass  of  works  upon  this  subject. 

The  foundations  of  modern  infidelity  may  be  said  to  have  been 
laid  by  Hobbes  and  Spinoza,  both  of  whom  manifested  an  equally 
hostile  spirit  against  natural  as  against  revealed  religion;  and  the 
latter  of  whom,  who  has  written  much  more  fully  and  formally 
against  the  truth  of  revelation  than  Hobbes,  and  who  has  always 
exerted,  and  continues  to  the  present  day  to  exert,  a  much  greater 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


09/5 


influence  upon  the  views  of  infidel  writers,  is  supposed  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  Dugald  Stewart  to  have  very  decidedly  indicated  a  tendency 
to  insanity,  a  supposition,  he  adds,  by  no  means  incompatible  (as 
will  be  readily  admitted  by  all  who  have  paid  any  attention  to  the 
phenomena  of  madness)  with  that  logical  acumen  which  is  conspi¬ 
cuous  in  some  of  his  writings.”^ 

Hobbes’s  Leviathan  was  published  in  1651,  and  Spinoza’s  Trac- 
tatus  Theologico-Politicus  in  1670,  and  to  these  works  the  de¬ 
fenders  of  Christianity  generally  had  reference  in  dealing  with  the 
objections  of  opponents  until  the  rise  of  the  great  band  of  English 
deists  in  the  concluding  part  of  the  17th  and  in  the  early  part  of 
last  century.  The  first  English  writer  of  eminence  who  has 
written  fully  and  at  length  in  defence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  objections  of  infidels,  is  Richard  Baxter, 
so  well  known  and  so  deservedly  esteemed  for  his  numerous  and 
multifarious  writings,  controversial  and  practical,  and  for  the 
extraordinary  services,  which  he  has  been  honoured  to  render  to 
the  cause  of  religion  and  piety.  He  enters  somewhat  upon  this 
subject  in  the  second  part  of  his  Saints'  Rest,  and  prosecutes  it 
more  fully,  first  in  his  Unreasonableness  of  Infidelity,  published 
in  1655,  and  afterwards  in  his  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
published  in  1666,  and  in  an  appendix  to  the  latter  work  entitled 
More  Reasons  for  the  Christian  Religion,  and  no  Reason  against 
it,  published  in  1671.  These  books  of  Baxter  upon  the  evidences 
have  not  been  so  much  read,  and  are  not  so  well  known,  as  some 
of  his  other  works,  but  they  are  possessed  of  great  value.  It  is 
but  lately  that  I  have  been  led  to  read  them,  but  I  have  formed  a 
very  high  opinion  of  their  value,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
subsequent  writers  upon  the  evidences  have  been  more  indebted 
to  them  than  is  generally  supposed.  Like  most  of  Baxter’s  other 
works,  they  were  written  far  too  hastily  and  hurriedly  to  be  well 
digested  or  compacted ;  they  present  a  good  many  digressions,  and 
much  irrelevant  matter,  by  which  the  continuity  of  the  argument 
is  sometimes  broken  or  hidden  ;  but  they  contain  a  great  deal  of 
important  and  valuable  discussion  which,  notwithstanding  all  that 
has  since  been  written  upon  the  subject,  after  the  grounds  and  rea¬ 
sons  of  infidelity  were  more  fully  opened  up,  and  notwithstanding 

’  Dissertation,  Note,  p.  265, 


P 


226 


SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 


the  improvements  to  which  fuller  discussions  with  infidels 
have  led  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  proofs  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  ought  to  he  expounded,  unfolded,  and 
arranged,  is  still  well  deserving  of  perusal  and  study. 

Baxter,  though  not  by  any  means  to  be  compared,  in  point  of 
sound-mindedness  and  judiciousness,  with  his  great  cotemporary 
Dr  Owen,  and  though  not  nearly  so  safe  a  guide  in  doctrinal 
matters,  was  a  man  of  perhaps  still  greater  subtlety  and  reach  of 
thought,  and  therefore  when  he  kept  the  right  track,  and  was  not 
perverted,  as  was  sometimes  the  case,  by  his  subtlety,  he  rose  more 
above  the  ordinary  current  views  of  his  age  than  Owen  or  any  of 
his  other  great  cotemporaries ;  and  has  in  this,  as  well  as  in  other 
ways,  sometimes  rendered  valuable  service  to  truth,  and  exerted 
an  important  influence  upon  the  opinions  of  men.  We  have  an 
illustration  of  this  in  his  books  upon  the  evidences,  where,  amid 
many  indications  of  the  fervency  of  his  piety,  of  his  deep  sense  of 
spiritual  and  divine  things,  and  his  earnest  longing  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  men’s  souls,  we  meet  with  some  argumentative  expositions 
of  the  rational  evidences  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  as  they  are 
sometimes  called,  which  would  do  no  discredit  to  Dr  Samuel 
Clarke,  or  to  any  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  the  school  of  cold 
rational  mere  argumentators,  who  arose  in  the  next  generation. 
The  tendency  at  that  time  among  Baxter’s  friends,  in  opposition 
to  the  other  extreme  which  prevailed  among  the  clergy  of  the 
Establishment,  was  to  disregard  or  despise  the  rational  or  external 
evidences  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  which  are  fitted  in  right 
reason  to  convince  infidels,  and  to  dwell  only  on  these  more  spiri¬ 
tual  views  of  the  effects  of  divine  truth  itself  in  connection  with 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  whereby  believers  are  built  up  in  their 
most  holy  faith ;  and  this  tendency  even  Dr  Owen  has  exhibited 
to  an  erroneous  extent  in  his  Self -evidencing  Power  of  the  Bible, 
and  in  his  Reason  of  Faith.  Baxter,  it  may  be  believed,  was  not 
insensible  to  the  more  spiritual  views  of  this  matter,  was  not  dis¬ 
posed  to  overlook  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  production 
■of  faith,  or  to  undervalue  the  witness  of  the  Spirit;  and  he  has 
given  far  more  prominence  in  the  works  above  referred  to  to  these 
important  topics  than  the  generality  of  writers  upon  the  evidences ; 
but  he  at  the  same  time  strenuously  vindicated  for  the  rational  or 
external  evidence  its  true  place  and  its  rightful  authority  with 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


227 


reference  to  its  appropriate  objects,  and  he  objected  to  some  of  the 
notions  that  were  then  current  about  the  witness  of  the  Spirit. 
This  exposed  him  to  some  odium,  but  it  was  easier  to  raise  a  pre¬ 
judice  against  him  as  ascribing  too  much  to  human  reason,  than 
to  answer  the  arguments  by  which  he  defended  his  views.  In  the 
conclusion  of  his  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion  he  has  the 
following  curious  passage  in  reference  to  this  subject : — 

“  T  know  there  is  a  sort  of  over  wise  and  overdoing  divines  who  will  tell 
their  followers  in  private,  where  there  is  none  to  contradict  them,  that  the 
method  of  this  treatise  is  perverse,  as  appealing  too  much  to  natural  light 
and  overvaluing  human  reason,  and  that  I  should  have  done  no  more  but 
shortly  tell  men  that  all  which  God  speaketh  in  his  word  is  true,  and  that 
propria  luce  it  is  evident  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  to 
all  God’s  elect  he  will  give  his  Spirit  to  cause  them  to  discern  it,  and  that 
this  much  alone  had  been  better  than  all  these  disputes  and  reasons  ;  but 
these  overwise  men  who  need  themselves  no  reason  for  their  religion,  and 
judge  accordingly  of  others,  and  think  that  those  men  who  rest  not  in  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ  should  rest  in  theirs,  are,  many  of  them,  so  well 
acquainted  with  me  as  not  to  expect  I  should  trouble  them  in  their  way,  or 
reason  against  them  who  speak  against  reason,  even  in  the  greatest  matters 
which  our  reason  is  given  us  for.  As  much  as  I  am  addicted  to  scribbling,  I 
can  quietly  dismiss  this  sort  of  men,  and  love  their  zeal  without  the  labour 
of  opening  their  ignorance.”^ 

To  the  two  works  of  Dr  Owen  above  referred  to,  we  may  after¬ 
wards  have  occasion  to  advert.  It  is  enough  at  present  to  observe 
that  they  are  not,  properly  speaking,  works  directed  to  the  object 
of  establishing  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  but  the  divine 
origin  of  the  books  of  Scripture  ;  and  that  though  they  contain 
some  statements  which  Baxter  would  have  regarded,  and  justly, 
as  making  too  little  of  the  rational  or  external  evidence  for  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  they  are  free  from  any  very  material  error ; 
and  that  this  freedom  from  material  error  arises  chiefly  from  Owen 
having  generally,  though  perhaps  not  always,  kept  in  view  these 
two  distinctions,  the  importance  of  which  we  have  repeatedly 
explained  to  you,  but  which  have  been  very  much  overlooked  by 
writers  upon  these  subjects,  viz. — first,  the  distinction  betw^een  the 
evidence  by  which  unbelievers  ought  rationally  or  in  right  reason 
to  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  that  by  which 
believers  may  be  preserved  and  strengthened  in  their  faith  when 

^  Baxter’s  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion,  Works,  vol.  xxi.  p.  415. 


228 


SEVENTEENTH  LECTURE. 


assaulted  by  temptations  to  infidelity,  or  which  they  might  justly 
unfold  if  called  upon  to  give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  was  in 
them  ;  and  second,  the  distinction  between  the  evidence  for  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  and  that  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  books 
of  Scripture.  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  confirm  the  truth  and  the 
pertinency  for  some  purposes  of  these  distinctions  by  so  high  an 
authority  as  that  of  Dr  Owen  : — 

“  On  these  suppositions,  I  fear  not  to  affirm  that  there  are  in  every  indi¬ 
vidual  hook  of  the  Scriptures,  particularly  those  named,  those  divine  charac¬ 
ters  and  criteria  which  are  sufficient  to  difference  them  from  all  other  writings 
whatever,  and  to  testify  their  divine  authority  to  the  minds  and  consciences 
of  believers.  I  say  of  believers,  for  we  inquire  not  on  what  grounds  unbe¬ 
lievers,  or  those  who  do  not  believe,  do  not  believe  the  word  of  God,  nor  yet 
directly  on  what  outward  motives  such  persons  may  be  induced  so  to  do. 
But  our  sole  inquiry  at  present  is,  what  the  faith  of  them  who  do  believe  is 
resolved  into.”  ^ 

“  It  is  one  thing  to  prove  and  believe  the  doctrines  of  Christ  to  be  true 
and  divine,  another  to  prove  and  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  given  by  in¬ 
spiration  of  God,  or  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  which  alone  was 
proposed  unto  consideration.  A  doctrine  true  and  divine  may  be  written  in 
and  proposed  unto  us  by  writings  that  were  not  divinely  and  infallibly 
inspired,  and  so  might  the  doctrines  of  Christ  have  been,  but  not  without  the 
unspeakable  disadvantage  of  the  church.  And  there  are  sundry  arguments 
which  forcibly  and  effectually  prove  the  doctrines  of  Christ  to  have  been 
divine  which  are  not  of  any  efficacy  to  prove  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  though,  on  the  other  hand,  whatever  doth  prove  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  doth  equally  prove  the  divine  truth  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christ.”  ^ 

This  last  quotation  is  the  first  topic  stated  in  answer  to  the 
objection  adduced  by  Stillingfleet,  that  it  was  injurious  to  the 
Christian  religion  to  remove  or  discard  the  rational  grounds  on 
which  we  believe  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  to  be  true  and 
divine.” 

There  is  another  great  work  on  the  evidences  which  belongs  to 
this  period,  by  a  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  eminently  dis¬ 
tinguished  for  talent  and  erudition,  who  was  engaged  for  some 
time  in  a  controversy  with  Owen  and  Baxter  on  the  subject  of 
conformity  to  the  Episcopal  establishment,  and  who  has  written 
to  good  purpose  upon  many  important  subjects,  but  whose  perma¬ 
nent  services  to  the  cause  of  Christian  truth  rest  perhaps  princi- 

’  Owen’s  Reason  of  Faith,  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  353.  ^  Ibid.  p.  348. 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


229 


pally  upon  his  invaluable  works  against  the  Church  of  Rome — 
I  mean  Dr  Stillingfleet,  bishop  of  Worcester.  Stillingfleet’s  work 
on  the  evidences  is  entitled  Origines  Sacrce,  and  was  published  in 
1662,  in  the  interval  between  the  publication  of  Baxters  two 
principal  works  upon  the  subject.  It  discusses  with  much  ability 
and  learning  the  rational  or  external  evidences  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  but  does  not  dwell  upon  those  more  spiritual  views 
of  the  subject  to  which  Dr  Owen  had  given  so  much  prominence, 
and  to  which  Baxter,  without  disparaging  the  others,  had  assigned 
their  right  place.  It  is  deserving  of  notice  that  Stillingfleet  in 
this  work  (book  ii.  chap,  x.)  animadverts  upon  some  views  of 
Owens  contained  in  his  Self -evidencing  Power  of  the  Bible, 
published  a  few  years  before  (in  1658),  though  without  mention¬ 
ing  Owen  or  his  work,  and  that  it  was  evidently  to  avoid  the 
force  of  Stillingfleet’s  animadversions  that  Owen,  in  his  Reason  of 
Faith,  published  long  afterwards  (in  1672),  though  in  like  manner 
without  any  formal  reference  to  Stillingfleet,  made  the  important 
explanations  and  limitations  of  his  views,  which  we  have  quoted 
above  from  him. 

The  works  of  Baxter  and  Stillingfleet  upon  the  evidences  are, 
we  think,  entitled  to  more  attention  than  they  have  generally 
received  in  modern  times,  and  are  still  deserving  of  a  perusal  by 
those  who  desire  to  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  subject, 
not  only  because  of  their  talent  and  learning,  but  because  they 
mark  an  important  era  in  the  literary  history  of  this  subject,  and 
contain  materials  to  which  many  of  their  successors  have  been 
much  indebted. 


LECTURE  XVIII. 


SKETCH  OF  LITERAKY  HISTORY  CONTI^^UEH— LESLIE,  JEN¬ 
KINS  —  DEISTICAL  CONTROVERSY  —  LELAND,  COLLINS, 
BUTLER,  &c. 


PRACTICAL  infidelity,  and  everything  that  was  offensive  and 
disgraceful,  prevailed  to  a  fearful  extent  in  England  during 
the  reign  of  the  last  two  princes  of  the  house  of  Stuart ;  hut  there 
was  not  then  a  great  deal  of  controversial  discussion  about  the 
truth  of  Christianity.  After  the  Revolution  of  1688,  although  that 
event  was  in  many  respects  a  great  national  blessing,  and  not  as 
High  Churchmen  have  always  regarded,  and  still  regard  it,  a  great 
national  sin,  there  was  no  real  revival  of  true  religion  in  the 
Church  of  England ;  and  even  the  Nonconformists,  who,  from  the 
Restoration  to  the  Revolution  had  been,  while  subjected  to  great 
hardships  and  persecutions,  almost  the  only  preservers  and  pro¬ 
moters  of  piety  and  godliness,  soon  fell  to  a  considerable  extent 
under  the  influence  of  the  loose  latitudinarian  semi-infidel  spirit 
which  prevailed  almost  universally  in  the  Established  Church. 
The  infidelity  which  had  been  so  extensively  generated  after  the 
Restoration,  under  the  fostering  influence  of  abounding  iniquit}^, 
continued  to  exist,  and  to  operate  after  the  Revolution ;  it  assumed 
greater  boldness,  was  openly  advocated  by  some  men  of  consider¬ 
able  learning  and  ability,  and  this  gave  rise  to  a  great  deal  of  con¬ 
troversial  discussion.  The  deistical  controversy,  as  it  is  sometimes 
called,  may  be  said  to  have  lasted  in  England  for  more  than  half 
a  century  after  the  Revolution.  In  this  controversy  the  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  objections  against  it 
were  fully  discussed,  and  not  a  few  works,  which  are  of  lasting  and 
permanent  value,  were  produced  by  the  defenders  of  revelation. 


LITERARY  HISTORY, 


231 


The  deistical  controversy  in  England  during  nearly  the  first  half 
of  last  century  is  the  more  important  in  the  history  of  theological 
literature,  because  the  infidel  views  then  promulgated  in  England 
laid  the  foundations  both  of  French  and  German  infidelity.  The 
writings  of  the  English  deists  not  only  tended  to  produce  and  to 
call  forth  the  infidelity  which  has  since  prevailed  so  extensively  in 
France  and  Germany,  but  furnished  the  substance  or  at  least  the 
germs  of  most  of  the  arguments  by  which  French  and  German 
infidelity  has  beeu  defended.  Voltaire,  who  contributed  largely 
to  introduce  into  France  the  philosophy  of  Newton  and  Locke, 
was  at  least  equally  successful  in  disseminating  the  infidelity  of 
Collins  and  Woolston;  and  although  the  infidel  neology  of  Ger¬ 
many  has  been  considerabl}^  modified  in  its  character  by  an  inter¬ 
mixture  of  unintelligible  metaphysics,  and  by  the  exhibition  of  a 
vastly  greater  amount  of  philological  and  ecclesiastical  learning 
than  either  the  English  or  the  French  infidels  ever  possessed,  yet 
its  fundamental  principles  are  to  be  found  very  plainly  and  fully 
set  forth,  not  only  in  the  works  of  Spinoza,  but  also  in  those  of 
English  infidels,  especially  of  Tindal  and  Morgan.  Infidelity  pre¬ 
vailed  very  extensively  in  England  before  it  became  a  subject  of 
controversial  discussion,  or  was  openly  defended  from  the  press  by 
men  of  any  eminence.  This  was  very  much  the  case  during  the 
period  between  the  Revolution  and  the  end  of  the  century.  It 
was  during  this  period  that  the  Boyle  Lecture  was  established,  an 
institution  which  gave  rise  to  many  important  works  on  the  evi¬ 
dences  both  of  natural  and  revealed  religion,  as  we  formerly  had 
occasion  to  mention  ;  works  however  which,  though  valuable  in 
many  respects,  are,  for  reasons  which  we  have  explained  to  you,  to 
be  read  with  some  caution.  Some  valuable  works  on  the  evidences 
were  also  published  at  this  period  which  were  not  connected  with 
the  Boyle  Lectureship,  and  which  are  of  general  and  permanent 
value,  independently  of  temporary  controversies.  Leslie's  Short 
and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists,  a  work  of  singular  talent,  and 
which,  from  the  peculiar  mode  in  which  it  treats  the  subject,  has 
never  been  superseded  by  any  other,  but  is  still  well  deserving  of 
a  perusal,  Avas  published  in  1697,  having  been  written  at  the 
request  of  a  friend  whose  lot  was  thrown  among  persons  who  were 
in  the  constant  habit  of  ridiculing  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  all 
revealed  religion,  and  who  wished  to  be  furnished  Avith  some  argu- 


232 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


ments  for  the  truth  of  Christiauity  that  might  be  simple,  palpable, 
and  portable,  or  well  adapted  for  ready  use  in  confirming  his  own 
faith,  and  in  silencing  gainsayers  ;  and  this  purpose  Leslie’s  work 
is  most  admirably  fitted  to  serve.  His  Short  and  Easy  Method 
with  the  Jews,  published  in  1699,  is  a  work  displaying  great 
talent.  It  enters  of  course  at  greater  length  than  the  former  into 
the  subject  of  prophecy,  and  fully  exposes  the  pretences  by  which 
the  modern  Jews  endeavour  to  evade  the  application  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophecies  to  our  Saviour.  His  Truth  of  Christianity 
Demonstrated  is  a  valuable  supplement  to  both  his  previous 
books,  and  by  these  three  works  he  has  entitled  himself  to  a  very 
high  place  among  the  defenders  of  Christianity.^  There  is  also  a 
very  useful  and  respectable  work  on  the  evidences,  containing  a 
great  deal  of  solid  learning  and  judicious  reflection — Jenkins  on 
The  Reasonableness  and.  Certainty  of  the  Christian  Religion,  in 
two  volumes,  which  was  published  at  the  same  time,  in  1698. 
In  his  preface  he  says  :  The  general  decay  and  contempt  of  the 
Christian  religion  amongst  us  has  made  me  think  that  I  could  not 
better  employ  my  leisure  than  in  using  my  best  endeavours  to 
shew  the  excellency  and  the  certainty  of  it;”  and  again,  ‘‘  There 
never  appeared,  I  believe,  among  Christians  so  general  a  disaffec¬ 
tion  as  in  the  present  age  to  the  Christian  religion  in  men  pretend¬ 
ing  at  least  to  reason  and  learning,  and  natural  religion  and 
moral  virtue.”  And  though  much  had  been  written  in  defence  of 
Christianity  as  well  as  against  it  in  the  interval  between  this  and 
the  publication  of  Butler’s  Analogy  in  1736,  yet  no  very  material 
improvement  had  taken  place  in  public  sentiment,  if  we  may 
judge  from  a  statement  he  makes  in  his  advertisement  prefixed  to 
that  great  work,  which  is  to  this  effect :  “  It  is  come,  I  know  not 
how,  to  be  taken  for  granted  by  many  persons  that  Christianity  is 
not  so  much  a  subject  of  inquiry,  but  it  is  now  at  length  discovered 
to  be  fictitious,  and  accordingly  they  treat  it  as  if  in  the  present  age 
this  were  an  agreed  point  among  all  people  of  discernment,  and 
nothing  remained  but  to  set  it  up  as  a  principal  subject  of  mirth 
and  ridicule,  as  it  were  by  way  of  reprisals  for  its  having  so  long 
interrupted  the  pleasures  of  the  world.”  And  yet  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  attacks  which  had  been  made  upon  Christianity 

^  These  three  works  of  Leslie  are  all  contained  in  Christian  Literature,  1841, 
though  the  last  is  erroneously  placed  first. 


LITERARY  HISTORY, 


233 


were  all  repelled  with  great  learning  and  ability.  There  had 
however  been  no  revival  of  real  religion  and  vital  godliness  in 
England.  The  church  continued  as  thoroughly  sunk  in  worldliness 
and  carelessness,  as  perfectly  indifferent  about  all  the  high  and 
holy  functions  of  a  church  of  Christ,  at  the  middle  as  at  the 
beginning  of  last  century,  and  hence  infidelity  as  well  as  irreligion 
continued  to  prevail.  It  is  right  that  all  attacks  made  upon 
Christianity  with  a  show  of  reasoning  and  learning  should  be  met, 
as  they  have  always  been,  with  better  reasoning  and  superior 
learning.  But  the  exposure  of  infidel  objections  and  the  estab¬ 
lishment  by  unanswerable  argument  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
revelation  are  not  enough  to  secure  the  great  objects  for  which  that 
revelation  was  given  ;  and  the  diminished  extent  to  which  an  open 
profession  of  infidelity  has  subsequently  prevailed,  though  in  some 
measure  to  be  accounted  for  by  temporary  and  adventitious  causes, 
may  also  be  regarded  as  proving  that  nothing  contributes  so  much 
to  discourage  and  prevent  a  general  public  profession  of  infidelity 
as  an  increase  in  the  number  of  those  who  are  living  under  the 
influence  of  personal  religion,  and  are  really  taking  the  word  of 
God  as  a  light  unto  their  feet  and  a  lamp  unto  their  path. 

Still  the  period  to  which  we  have  referred  is  one  of  primary 
importance  in  the  literary  history  of  this  subject,  and  therefore 
you  ought  to  have  some  acquaintance  with  it.  It  is  true  of  this 
as  of  most  other  departments  of  controversial  discussion,  that,  in 
order  to  understand  it  fully,  you  must  read  the  principal  works 
which  have  been  written  upon  both  sides.  In  this  case,  however, 
there  is  an  opportunity  of  gaining  a  fair  measure  of  acquaintance 
with  it  by  the  perusal  of  a  single  work — I  mean  Leland’s  View 
of  the  Deistical  Writers.  Leland  w^as  a  dissenting  minister  in 
Ireland,  and  had  himself  written  largely  and  ably  in  the  course  of 
the  controversy,  particularly  against  Tindal  and  Morgan.  His 
View  of  the  Deistical  Writers  gives  an  account  of  all  the  prin¬ 
cipal  works  published  in  England  against  Christianity,  from 
Herbert  down  to  Hume,  and  of  all  the  principal  works  written  in 
reply  to  them ;  in  short,  of  the  whole  literature  of  the  subject. 
He  gives  also  a  summary  statement  of  the  chief  arguments  and 
objections  brought  forward  by  the  different  infidel  authors,  and  of 
the  answers  that  were  or  might  be  given  to  them ;  and  as  the 
infidels’  positions  are  stated  fairly,  and  are  commonly  answered 


234 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


with  judgment  and  ability,  the  work  contains  a  pretty  full  view, 
not  only  of  the  literature,  but  of  the  substance  and  merits  of  the 
controversy,  while  it  affords  abundant  information  to  guide  you  in 
the  further  prosecution  of  the  study  of  it,  if  you  should  have 
opportunity  or  inclination  to  do  so.  I  do  not  know  any  one  book 
which  contains  so  much  useful  information  upon  the  subject  of 
the  deistical  controversy,  or  any  one  which  within  the  same  com¬ 
pass  will  give  you  so  full  a  view  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
Christianity  has  been  in  point  of  fact  assailed  and  defended;  and 
it  is  therefore  one  of  those  books  which  I  would  strongly  recom¬ 
mend  to  you  to  peruse.  I  formerly  made  some  remarks  as  to  the 
way  and  manner  in  which  infidels  have  usually  conducted  their 
attacks  upon  Christianity,  and  a  perusal  of  Leland  will,  I  think, 
satisfy  you  of  their  truth.  None  of  them  attempted  to  give  a  full 
and  connected  exposition  of  the  whole  train  of  argument  by  which 
Christianity  might  be  assailed,  or  a  full  and  formal  refutation  of 
the  whole  arguments  in  its  different  departments  by  which  it 
might  be  and  has  been  established.  Each  generally  took  some 
one  particular  topic,  on  which  he  exerted  his  ingenuity,  without 
trying  to  shew  formally  how  it  bore  upon  the  general  question, 
though  some  of  the  more  plausible  difficulties  connected  with 
particular  portions  of  Scripture  most  of  them  contrived  to  bring 
in.  They  seldom  attempted  to  give  formal  or  regular  answers  to 
the  works  written  against  them,  though  they  continued  to  write 
in  support  of  their  former  views ;  or,  if  they  attempted  an  answer, 
they  commonly  had  recourse  to  mere  cavilling  and  evasion.  And 
yet,  in  one  form  or  another,  most  of  the  arguments  by  which 
Christianity  has  been  assailed  were  brought  forward  in  the  course 
of  that  controversy,  and  most  of  them  are  adverted  to  in  Leland, 
except  those  which,  being  based  upon  a  minute  examination  of 
particular  portions  of  Scripture,  could  not  be  investigated  in 
consistency  with  the  object  and  limits  of  his  work. 

There  was  much  more  discussion  about  the  contents  than  about 
the  evidences  of  revelation,  a  class  of  subjects  on  which  it  is  easy 
for  infidels  to  display  some  ingenuity  and  smartness;  and,  with 
the  exception  of  Hume,  who  is  the  only  Scotchman  among  the 
deistical  writers  of  whom  Leland  gives  an  account,  none  of  them 
made  anything  like  a  regular  attempt  to  grapple  with,  or  to 
dispose  of,  the  proper  historical  evidence  for  the  miracles  by 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


235 


which  Jesus  and  his  apostles  established  their  claims.  Many 
hints  indeed  were  thrown  out  about  the  impossibility  of  miracles 
taking  place,  the  difficulty  or  impossibility  of  proving  them,  and 
many  insinuations  made  against  the  character  and  conduct  of  the 
apostles,  and  against  some  particular  detached  portions  of  the 
evidences.  But  the  leading  subjects  of  more  full  and  formal 
discussion  were  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature  to  guide  men 
to  a  knowledge  of  God  and  duty,  and  the  attainment  of  happi¬ 
ness  ;  the  supremacy  of  human  reason  as  the  only  proper  test  and 
standard  of  what  ought  to  be  believed  and  practised  ;  the  absurdity 
of  all  positive  precepts  and  institutions,  as  they  were  called,  by 
which  was  meant,  in  substance,  precepts  and  institutions  which 
the  reason  of  man  could  not  have  discovered  to  be  obligatory,  or 
the  reasonableness  of  which,  in  their  own  nature,  and  irrespective 
of  the  authority  on  which  they  professed  to  rest,  the  reason  of 
man  could  not  easily  perceive;  the  alleged  inconsistency  with 
each  other,  or  with  right  views  of  God’s  character  and  government, 
of  the  leading  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  especially  of  many 
features  in  the  Jewish  economy;  and  the  alleged  mistakes,  incon¬ 
sistencies,  and  other  objectionable  qualities  of  many  particular 
statements  of  Scripture ;  the  erroneous  application  of  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  prophecies  by  the  writers  of  the  New,  and  generally  the 
impossibility  or  extreme  difficulty  of  making  out  satisfactorily 
anything  like  a  clear  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  and  the  difficulty  of 
settling  and  establishing  the  canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
All  these  topics  were  discussed,  and  sometimes  with  considerable 
ability  and  learning,  though  in  general  with  a  flagrant  disregard 
of  the  rules  at  once  of  fair  reasoning  and  common  honesty.  All . 
the  infidel  works  published  upon  these  subjects  were  answered, 
fully  and  conclusively  answered,  and  the  cause  of  Christianity 
gained  in  argument  a  complete  triumph.  And  in  regard  more 
especially  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature,  and  the 
supremacy  of  human  reason,  the  reasonableness  and  divine 
authority  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  the  validity  of  tlie  argument 
from  prophecy,  and  the  authority  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  the 
works  published  in  defence  of  revelation  in  the  course  of  that 
controversy  contain  a  great  deal  of  useful  and  valuable  matter  ;  and 
indeed  all  that  is  needful  to  defend  the  truth  upon  these  points, 
and  to  vindicate  it  from  every  plausible  objection.  Many  of  the 


236 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


works  written  on  both  sides  have  now  fallen  into  oblivion. 
Tindabs  Christianity  as  old  as  the  Creation,  and  Morgan’s  Moral 
Philosopher,  are  still  interesting  works,  for  this,  among  other 
reasons,  that  they  set  forth  the  whole  substance  of  the  infidel 
neology  of  Germany,  while  the  latter  also  contains  perhaps  the 
fullest  and  most  elaborate  attack  that  has  been  made  upon  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Mosaic  economy ;  or,  as  it  has 
been  sometimes  expressed,  upon  the  divine  legation  of  Moses. 

Collins’s  work,  entitled  The  Grounds  and  Reasons  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Religion,  produced  perhaps  the  greatest  number  of  answers 
of  any  infidel  work  published  in  this  controversy,  and  gave  rise  to 
the  greatest  amount  of  discussion  ;  and  it  concerns  a  topic  which 
is  still  interesting  and  important,  and  which  is  not  altogether  free 
from  difficulties,  not  indeed  so  far  as  concerns  its  bearing  upon 
the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  merely  as  affecting 
the  right  mode  of  interpreting  a  few  difficult  passages  of  Scripture. 
Collins’s  position  was  this,  that  the  grounds  on  which  the  truth 
of  the  Christian  religion,  as  put  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  was 
not  the  miracles  which  he  wrought  to  prove  his  divine  commission 
as  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  but  only  the  proof  from  prophecy  that 
he  was  the  Messiah  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that 
unless  this  can  be  established,  his  claims  must  fall  to  the  ground  ; 
that\the  quotations  made  by  the  New  Testament  writers  of 
passages  from  the  Old  Testament  as  predictions  fulfilled  in  Christ 
are  not  explained  and  applied  by  them  in  the  literal  sense  which 
they  bear  as  they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  some 
secondary,  mystical,  allegorical  sense,  which  affords  no  clear  and 
satisfactory  ground  or  basis  for  a  rational  or  conclusive  argument. 
His  direct  and  professed  object  was  only  to  convict  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writers  of  mistakes  in  interpretation,  and  of  inconclusive 
reasoning  in  the  application  they  made  of  Old  Testament  state¬ 
ments  ;  but  he  all  along  insinuated  that  no  better  sort  of  argument 
could  be  deduced  from  anything  contained  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  there  were  no  predictions  in  the  Old 
Testament  which,  understood  in  their  proper  literal  sense  as  they 
stand  in  the  original,  were  fulfilled  in  the  character  and  history  of 
our  Saviour.  Now,  in  considering  this  subject,  two  questions  arise, 
which  differ  very  materially  both  in  their  nature  and  in  their 
importance  —  first,  Are  there  real  predictions  contained  in  the 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


237 


Old  Testament  of  which  the  true  and  intended  meaning  can  be 
clearly  and  certainly  established,  and  which,  in  their  true  and 
intended  meaning,  can  be  shewn  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  our 
Saviour  \  and  second,  Can  we  satisfactorily  explain  and  fully  vindi¬ 
cate  all  the  applications  made  of  Old  Testament  prophecies  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  ?  There  might  be  difficulties  attending  the 
application  made  of  Old  Testament  prophecies  by  the  writers  of 
the  New,  and  those  might,  or  might  not,  affect  their  inspiration  ; 
but  they  might  still  not  in  the  least  affect  the  proof  from  prophecy 
of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  accordingly  this  whole  subject  of 
the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  is  one  of  the 
most  important,  and  not  one  of  the  least  difficult,  in  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture.  There  may  be  difficulties,  and  there  are 
certainly  differences  of  opinion  among  the  defenders  of  revelation, 
as  to  the  way  in  which  some  of  the  New  Testament  quotations 
from  the  Old  are  to  be  explained  and  vindicated,  and  as  to  various 
important  questions  connected  with  the  interpretation  and  appli¬ 
cation  of  prophecy,  especially  what  is  called  the  double  sense  of 
prophecy,  or  the  view  that  there  are  predictions  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  which,  though  in  the  primary  and  literal  sense  applicable 
to  previous  events  nearer  the  time  when  they  were  uttered,  have 
yet  also  a  real  and  intended  fulfilment  in  the  life  and  history  of 
our  Saviour.^  But  these  difficulties,  and  the  discussions  to  which 
they  have  given  rise,  and  the  application  of  the  general  principles 
involved  in  these  discussions  to  the  interpretation  of  particular 
passages  of  Scripture,  very  remotely,  if  at  all,  affect  the  substantial 
merits  of  the  great  question  wffiether  or  not  there  be  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  series  of  real  and  undoubted  predictions,  the  meaning 
of  which  can  be  certainly  ascertained,  and  which  had  a  full,  com¬ 
plete,  and  obviously  intended  fulfilment  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
All  these  topics,  primary  and  subordinate,  whether  as  affecting  the 
claims  of  Jesus,  or  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  Scripture,  or 
merely  the  correct  interpretation  of  some  of  its  statements,  were 
introduced  into  the  discussion  which  Collins’s  book  occasioned,  and 
which  thus  took  a  wide  sweep  and  embraced  many  points  of  per¬ 
manent  interest. 

The  substance  of  what  was  maintained  by  the  generality  of 

’  See  remarkable  testimony  of  Micbaelis  upon  this  subject  quoted  in  Chalmers’s 
Evidences,  vol.  ii.  p,  20. 


238 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


those  who  wrote  in  defence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  against  Col¬ 
lins  was  this — 1st.  That  prophecy  is  not  the  only  proof  of  the  divine 
commission  of  our  Saviour,  but  that  he  wrought  miracles,  that  he 
appealed  to  miracles  in  support  of  his  claims,  and  that  these  miracles 
being  fully  established  by  satisfactory  evidence,  are  quite  sufficient 
to  impose  upon  us  an  obligation  to  believe  whatever  he  might  declare. 
2d.  That,  independently  of  any  proof  of  his  claims  from  miracles,  it 
can  be  proved,  from  an  examination  of  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
that  there  were  many  predictions  which,  in  their  proper  primary 
literal  sense,  apply  to  him,  and  were  fulfilled  in  him.  2d.  That 
there  is  nothing  unreasonable  or  absurd  in  the  idea  that  as  there 
are  in  the  Old  Testament  types  fulfilled  in  Christ,  the  antitype, 
so  there  may  be  predictions  which  were  fulfilled  in  previous  events, 
and  found  also  a  real  and  an  intended  fulfilment  in  the  events  of 
his  life  and  history.  4th.  That  the  applications  of  Old  Testament 
statements  to  Jesus  by  the  writers  of  the  New  may  be  explained 
and  vindicated,  by  shewing  in  some  cases  that  they  do  accord  with 
the  true,  real  primary,  though  perhaps  not  the  most  obvious,  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  statements  as  they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament ;  in 
others,  that  there  are  in  the  predictions  themselves,  independently 
of  the  New  Testament  application  of  them,  clear  indications  of  a 
double  sense  and  reference ;  and  in  some  again,  that  they  are  not 
adduced  in  the  New  Testament  as  proofs  or  prophecies,  strictly 
so  called,  but  merely  as  accommodations  of  Old  Testament  state¬ 
ments  to  events  of  a  similar  kind.  5th.  That  even  if  they  could 
not  be  all  explained  or  vindicated  in  some  one  or  other  of  these 
ways,  yet  that  this  may  be  owing  principally  to  our  ignorance,  and 
that  great  weight  is  due  in  interpreting  the  meaning  of  some 
obscure  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  statements  of  men 
who  gave  abundant  proof  that  they  were  commissioned  by  God  to 
reveal  his  will,  and  that  though  every  difficulty  of  this  sort  should 
not  be  fully  explained,  this  would  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  doubt¬ 
ing  or  denying  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  still  less  for  doubting  or  denying  the  divine  commission  of 
Christ,  or  the  general  truth  of  Christianity.  On  all  these  various 
topics,  much  interesting  and  valuable  information  is  to  be  found 
in  some  of  the  numerous  works  which  were  called  forth  by  Collins’s 
Grounds  and  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion,  and  his  defence 
of  it  in  his  Scheme  of  Literal  Prophecy. 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


239 


There  are  some  reflections  suggested  by  a  review  of  the  deis- 
tical  controversy  in  England  in  the  early  part  of  last  century 
which  I  shall  reserve  till  I  have  finished  this  historical  sketch. 
In  the  meantime  I  would  observe  that  the  following  were  some  of 
the  works  published  in  the  course  of  this  controversy,  that  may  be 
considered  as  of  more  than  temporary  value,  and  as  still  deserving 
of  some  attention,  from  the  arguments  and  information  they  con¬ 
tain  : — Richardson  and  Nye  on  The  Canon,  in  reply  to  Toland  ; 
Conybeare,  Leland,  Foster,  Law,  and  Waterland  in  reply  to  Tin- 
dal ;  Leland,  Chapman,  and  Lowman  on  the  civil  government  of 
the  Hebrews,  in  reply  to  Morgan  ;  Benson  and  Doddridge  in  reply 
to  Christianity  not  Founded  in  Argument ;  and  Bishop  Chand¬ 
ler,  Dr  Samuel  Chandler  (a  dissenting  minister),  and  Dr  Samuel 
Clarke,  in  reply  to  Collins.  The  titles  of  the  works  and  something 
of  their  general  character  and  contents  you  will  find  in  Leland. 
Leland  includes  in  his  Vieiv  an  examination  of  Hume’s  argument ; 
but  I  say  nothing  more  on  this  topic,  as  I  formerly  noticed  the 
works  written  against  Hume,  and  recommended  among  others, 
two  letters  on  Hume’s  Essay  on  Miracles,  contained  in  this 
work  of  Leland’s.  Before  quitting  this  subject,  I  may  mention 
that  Leland’s  Vieiv  of  the  Deistical  Writers  contains  much  the 
fullest  answer  we  have  to  the  infidel  objections  of  Lord  Bolingbroke, 
though  there  are  very  masterly  exposures  of  some  of  Bolingbroke’s 
infidel  notions  to  be  found  in  Warburton’s  Divine  Legation  of 
Moses. 

Besides  these  works,  which  were  written  more  directly  and 
formally  in  answer  to  infidel  works,  there  were  several  to  which 
the  controversy,  as  then  conducted,  may  be  said  to  have  given 
rise,  though  they  were  not  written  merely  as  answers  to  any 
particular  author,  but  took  a  wider  and  more  general  range,  and 
are  therefore,  in  some  respects,  of  more  extensive  and  permanent 
utility.  Most  of  them,  I  think,  I  have  already  had  occasion  to 
mention  and  to  recommend.  The  principal  of  them  are — Bishop 
Sherlock  on  The  Use  and  Intent  of  Prophecy,  and  his  Trial  of 
the  Witnesses  of  the  Resurrection,  and  Sequel  to  the  Trial; 
West  on  The  Resurrection,  Lyttleton  on  The  Conversion  of  St 
Paul,  Jones  on  The  Canon,  Lardner’s  Credibility,  and  Collection 
of  Jewish  and  Heathen  Testimonies,  and  Bishop  Butler’s  Analogy. 
Sherlock’s  Trial  and  Sequel,  West  and  Lyttleton,  are  contained 


240 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


in  Christian  Literature,  which  also  contains,  in  addition  to  the 
three  works  of  Leslie  formerly  mentioned,  Bishop  Watson  s  two 
Apologies,  Paley’s  Evidences,  and  Horce  Paulince,  Campbell  on 
Miracles,  Jenyns  on  the  Internal  Evidences,  and  Chandler’s 
Plain  Reasons  for  being  a  Christian.  Jones’s  work  on  The 
Canon  contains  the  fullest  information  to  be  found  anywhere  in 
regard  to  what  are  called  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  or  those  works  which,  in  early  times,  were  falsely 
ascribed  to  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  including  others  also  written 
by  the  authors  whose  names  they  bear,  which  some  writers  have 
reckoned  canonical,  but  which  have  not  been  generally  admitted 
into  the  sacred  canon.  Jones  was  prevented  by  death  from  com¬ 
pleting  his  work  by  establishing,  in  detail,  the  canonical  authority 
of  those  works  which  are  generally  regarded  as  composing  the 
true  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  having  proceeded  no  farther  in 
this  part  of  the  work  than  the  book  of  the  Acts.  This  defect 
however  is  fully  and  most  satisfactorily  supplied  by  Lardner,  in 
the  supplement  to  the  second  part  of  his  Credibility,  or,  as  it  is 
sometimes  called  by  a  distinct  title.  The  History  of  the  Apostles 
and  Evangelists.  We  have  mentioned  Butler’s  Analogy  among 
the  works  which  may  be  said  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
important  and  protracted  controversy  to  which  we  have  referred. 
At  first  sight  the  truth  of  this  observation  may  not  be  apparent ; 
and  it  is  certain  that  Butler  makes  no  direct  reference  either  to 
the  works  or  to  the  statements  of  the  infidel  authors  who  preceded 
him  ;  but  any  one  competently  acquainted  with  the  way  in  which 
the  attack  upon  Christianity  had  been  previously  conducted,  will 
see  that  Butler’s  Analogy  is  very  much  just  a  summing  up  of 
the  leading  departments  of  the  controversy.  Infidels  then,  as  has 
been  generally  the  case,  have  taken  the  place  of  objectors ;  they 
adduced  objections  against  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  some  of 
them  even  against  what  are  commonly  reckoned  fundamental 
parts  of  natural  religion,  their  objections,  so  far  as  natural  religion 
is  concerned,  being  directed  wholly  against  some  of  its  doctrines, 
and  their  objections  to  Christianity  being  directed  much  more 
against  its  doctrines  than  its  evidences.  These  facts,  which  stand 
out  upon  the  surface  of  the  controversy  as  it  had  been  generally 
conducted,  plainly  determined  the  character,  the  object,  and  the 
substance  of  Butler’s  great  work.  Its  professed  and  principal 


nUTLER^S  ANALOGY. 


241 


object  is  to  meet  objectors  and  to  dispose  of  objections,  to  shew 
that  the  objections  are  of  no  real  force  and  validity,  and  to  do 
this  principally  by  shewing  that  the  same  or  similar  objections 
might  with  equal  truth  be  adduced  against  doctrines  held  or 
truths  admitted  by  those  from  whom  the  objections  proceeded. 

Among  the  infidels  of  the  preceding  period  some,  while 
disclaiming  atheism,  and  professing  to  admit  the  existence  of  an 
intelligent  Creator  and  Governor,  manifested,  as  was  not  unnatural 
for  men  of  their  character,  a  considerable  dislike  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  moral  government — i.e.  a  government  regulated  in  some 
measure  by  a  regard  to  man’s  moral  character,  and  directed  to 
the  promotion  and  encouragement  of  virtue,  and  especially  to 
the  doctrine  that  this  life  is  a  state  of  probation  and  preparation 
connected  with  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments ;  while 
some  of  them  countenanced  a  species  of  fatalism,  or  a  denial  of 
man’s  moral  agency.  You  will  find  in  Leland  abundant  evidence 
that  objections  to  this  effect  had  been  broached  and  insisted  upon 
by  the  infidels  of  that  age.  Now,  against  these  objections  the 
first  part  of  Butler’s  Analogy  is  directed,  and  its  object  is  to 
shew, — by  tracing  the  analogy  between  the  constitution  and  course 
of  nature,  in  other  words,  the  works  of  creation  and  the  actual 
condition  and  circumstances  of  men  in  the  world,  admitted  to 
come  from  God,  on  the  one  hand,  and  natural  religion  on  the 
other,  used  here  specially  to  denote  the  great  doctrines  of  God’s 
moral  government  and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments — 
that  the  same  sort  of  objections,  objections  derived  from  the  same 
source,  based  upon  the  same  principles,  possessed  of  a  similar 
character,  and  of  equal  plausibility,  may  be  adduced  against  the 
former  as  against  the  latter,  that  these  objections  consequently 
are  of  no  real  validity,  and  that  those  who  have  adduced  them 
are  called  upon  to  abandon  them,  or  if  they  will  persist  in 
adhering  to  them,  that  they  are  bound  in  consistency  to  take 
refuge  in  atheism,  and  deny  equally  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world.  Leland  says,  speaking  of  the 
infidel  authors  of  whom  he  was  about  to  give  an  account,  “  they 
are  classed  by  some  of  their  own  writers  into  two  sects — mortal 
and  immortal  deists.  The  latter  acknowledge  a  future  state,  the 
former  deny  it,  or  at  least  represent  it  as  a  very  uncertain  thing.” 

Q 


242 


EIGHTEENTH  LECTURE. 


Now,  Butler’s  first  part  is  directed  against  the  mortal,  and  his 
second  against  the  immortal  deists.  The  objections  of  these 
persons  were  chiefly  directed  against  those  doctrines  of  revealed 
religion  which  men  could  not  have  discovered  in  the  exercise  of 
their  natural  faculties  ;  and  in  so  far  as  they  objected  against  the 
truth  or  probability  of  a  revelation  having  been  in  point  of  fact 
made,  or,  in  other  words,  dealt  with  the  evidences,  properly  so 
called,  they  usually  avoided  anything  that  might  lead  them  to 
face  fairly  and  frankly  the  direct  historical  proof  by  which  the 
truth  of  Christianity  is  established,  and  rather  endeavoured 
indirectly  to  set  it  wholly  aside  by  means  of  vague  general 
considerations  or  preliminary  presumptions,  such  as  the  antecedent 
improbability  of  miracles,  and  the  previous  probability  that  if  it 
were  indeed  a  revelation  from  God,  it  would  have  been  sooner 
given,  more  generally  diffused,  more  conclusively  proved,  and 
more  free  from  difficulties,  obscurities,  and  mysteries.  Now, 
Butler,  in  his  second  part,  by  tracing  the  analogy  between  the 
constitution  and  course  of  nature  and  natural  religion  on  the  one 
hand,  and  revealed  religion  on  the  other,  or  those  features  of  it 
against  which  the  objections  are  directed,  shews  that  the  same 
or  similar  objections  apply  to  the  former  as  to  the  latter ;  that  of 
course  the  objections  are  of  no  real  weight  or  validity,  or  that  at 
least  the  objectors,  in  order  to  preserve  consistency  in  adhering 
to  them,  must  renounce  or  abandon  doctrines  which  they  profess 
to  believe  as  established  upon  good  and  satisfactory  evidence.  All 
this  is  done  in  Butler’s  Analogy,  and  done  with  marvellous  skill, 
sagacity,  and  philosophic  caution ;  and  therefore  the  Analogy  is 
one  of  those  books  which  it  is  your  duty  not  only  to  peruse,  but 
to  study,  both  because  the  study  of  it  is  an  excellent  intellectual 
exercise,  well  fitted  to  improve  your  powers  and  faculties,  and 
because  it  establishes- many  important  principles  which,  when 
thoroughly  understood  and  digested,  will  place  you  far  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  great  mass  of  the  most  common  and  plausible 
infidel  objections. 


LECTURE  XIX. 


POPULAR  INFIDELITY  USUALLY  BASED  UPON  PERVERTING 
PARTICULAR  STATEMENTS  OF  SCRIPTURE  —  FRENCH 
INFIDELITY  — VOLTAIRE,  FINDLAY,  PAINE,  PALEY  — 
GERMAN  INFIDELITY  AND  RATIONALISM. 

WE  have  had  occasion  to  mention  that  many  of  the  English 
deists,  even  when  discussing  other  and  more  general  and 
abstract  topics,  commonly  contrived  to  bring  in  some  of  the  inci¬ 
dents  recorded,  or  statements  contained  in  the  Bible,  which  they 
thought  fitted  to  excite  a  prejudice  against  its  credibility  and 
authority.  Tindal’s  Christianity  as  Old  as  the  Creation,  for 
example,  is  a  work  which  professes  to  establish  some  important 
abstract  principles,  and  is  mainly  occupied  with  general  discussion 
about  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature,  the  supremacy  of 
human  reason,  and  the  absurdity,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  of 
a  positive  revelation  and  positive  institutions  and  precepts ;  and 
yet  he  has  contrived  to  bring  in,  in  the  course  of  it,  some  refer¬ 
ence  to  almost  all  these  passages,  in  the  Old  Testament  especially, 
on  which  infidels  have  been  accustomed  to  found  objections,  and 
which  they  have  usually  made  the  subjects  of  railing  or  of  ridicule. 
Of  the  works  written  in  reply  to  Tindal,  there  is  one  by  Dr 
Waterland,  a  man  of  great  ability  and  learning,  and  well  known 
in  theological  literature  for  the  zeal  and  perseverance  with  which 
he  employed  his  ability  and  learning  in  defending  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  This  work,  omitting  altogether  the  more  abstract 
and  argumentative  portion  of  Tindal’s  book,  is  confined  to  an 
explanation  and  defence  of  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  Tindal  had  distorted  and  perverted,  taking  them  in  the  order 
in  which  they  occur  in  the  Bible,  from  Genesis  to  Malachi;  and 


244 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


we  have  few  better  or  more  useful  books  on  this  subject  than  this 
work  of  Waterland’s,  entitled  Scrijpture  Vindicated.  Infidels 
indeed  are  well  aware  that  the  most  plausible  and  effective  means 
they  can  employ  to  excite  doubts  and  suspicions  in  men's  minds  is 
by  selecting  particular  portions  of  the  Bible,  or  particular  inci¬ 
dents  recorded  there,  distorting  and  perverting  them,  and  then 
making  use  of  them  for  the  purpose  of  producing  the  impression 
that  the  Bible  abounds  in  things  that  are  contradictory  and  absurd, 
offensive  and  ridiculous.  The  question  of  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  is  indeed  different  from  that  of  the  truth  and  reality 
of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  revelation.  But  most  men  who  have 
held  the  one  have  also  maintained  the  other ;  and  if  the  charges 
which  have  been  often  adduced  against  the  Scriptures  were  well 
founded,  they  would  not  only  overturn  their  divine  authority,  but 
militate  very  seriously  against  the  probability  of  their  containing 
or  embodying  an  authentic  and  credible  record  of  divine  revela¬ 
tions.  There  are  some  real  difficulties  connected  with  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  some  passages  of  Scripture,  especially  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament — difficulties  that  might  naturally  be  expected  to  occur  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  most  ancient  books  in  existence,  written 
in  a  language  which  has  for  more  than  two  thousand  years  ceased 
to  be  a  living  language,  recording  incidents  which  occurred  in  a 
state  of  things  very  different  from  any  that  has  come  under  our 
experience,  and  in  many  cases  not  giving,  and  not  professing  to 
give,  minute  and  detailed  accounts  of  all  the  subjects  to  which  they 
advert.  It  does  not  require  a  great  deal  of  ingenuity  to  make  a 
plausible  handle  of  these  difficulties,  and  to  swell  their  number  by 
distorting  and  perverting  passages  where  no  real  difficulty  exists. 
The  chief  heads  under  which  the  common  infidel  objections  derived 
from  particular  passages  of  Scripture,  as  distinguished  from  the 
substance  of  revelation,  or  the  system  of  doctrines  and  duties  which 
may  be  said  to  constitute  it,  may  be  classed,  are — the  alleged 
inconsistency  of  one  passage  with  another ;  the  alleged  incon¬ 
sistency  of  certain  actions  ascribed  to  God,  or  done  by  his  order,  or 
with  his  approbation,  with  right  views  of  religion  and  morality ;  the 
alleged  absurdity  of  some  of  the  provisions  and  arrangements  of  the 
Mosaic  economy,  and  of  some  of  the  miracles  recorded,  &c.  Objec¬ 
tions  from  these  various  sources,  when  set  off  with  some  skill  and 
ingenuity,  perhaps  with  some  wit  and  humour,  are  much  more  likely 


POPULAR  INFIDELITY, 


245 


to  make  an  impression  upon  men’s  minds  than  abstract  argumen¬ 
tation  ;  and  even  when  they  do  not  produce  infidelity  or  a  distinct 
and  avowed  rejection  of  the  authority  of  Scripture,  are  yet  too 
well  fitted  to  diminish  and  undermine  the  profound  respect  and 
reverence  with  which  the  word  of  God  ought  ever  to  be  regarded. 

It  is  chiefly  by  urging  objections  derived  from  these  sources 
that  infidelity  has  ever  made  much  progress;  and  if  you  shall 
ever  be  called  to  come  into  contact  with  avowed  infidelity  in  the 
course  of  your  ministerial  labours,  you  will  probably  find  that  it  is 
based  upon,  or  at  least  that  it  defends  itself  by  arguments  and 
considerations  of  this  sort ;  and  hence  the  propriety  of  your  being 
somewhat  acquainted  with  this  class  of  objections,  and  with  the 
readiest,  most  palpable,  and  most  effective  way  of  disposing  of 
them.  You  will  find  indeed  that  you  do  not  often  succeed  in 
reclaiming  to  a  profession  of  Christianity  men  who  have  made  a 
profession  of  infidelity,  by  merely  answering  their  arguments  ;  or, 
except  when  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God — i.e.  the  substance  of 
divine  revelation  itself,  explained  and  enforced  by  you — is  brought 
home  to  their  understandings  and  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
this  means  therefore  should  not  be  neglected  even  with  those  who 
at  the  time  professedly  despise  it.  But  still,  for  the  honour  of 
truth  and  the  protection  of  others,  it  is  proper  that  you  should  be 
able  and  ready  to  answer  more  directly  and  explicitly  the  grounds 
on  which  the  infidelity  you  may  meet  with  is  defended. 

This  class  of  infidel  objections  has  always  been  in  peculiar 
favour  with  French  infidels,  being  well  adapted  to  the  flippancy, 
frivolity,  and  superficiality  of  that  people.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
said  to  constitute  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  French 
infidelity ;  and  perhaps  the  greatest  master  in  this  department 
was  Voltaire,  to  whose  capacities  and  attainments  it  was  pecu¬ 
liarly  suited,  and  who  certainly  had  qualities  that  enabled  him  to 
set  it  off  to  the  best  advantage,  and  to  make  it  peculiarly  effective. 
The  objections  which  Voltaire  has  adduced  against  particular 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  against  particular  incidents  recorded 
there,  and  which  he  has  often  set  off  with  much  ingenuity  and 
wit,  are  scattered  over  his  works,  but  are  to  be  found  especially 
in  his  PliilosoiAiical  Dictionary,  and  in  his  Philosophy  of  History. 
You  will  find  most  of  them  collected  and  refuted  in  a  very  useful 
and  valuable  book,  entitled  A  Vindication  of  the  Sacred  Books 


246 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


and  of  Josephus,  especially  the  former,  from  various  misrepre¬ 
sentations  and  cavils  of  the  celebrated  M.  de  Voltaire,  by  Dr 
Findlay,  who  was  professor  of  divinity  in  Glasgow.  Dr  Findlay 
certainly  contrasts  somewhat  unfavourably  with  Voltaire  in  point 
of  style  and  manner ;  but  he  is  just  as  immeasurably  superior  to 
his  opponent  in  integrity,  learning,  and  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
as  he  is  inferior  in  elegance  and  wit.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
he  has  conclusively  convicted  Voltaire  of  many  instances  of  ignor¬ 
ance  and  dishonesty,  and  has  cast  much  light  upon  some  of  the 
difficult  and  obscure  passages  of  Scripture.  It  is  held  to  be  a  fair 
and  right  thing,  in  regard  to  profane  authors,  and  especially 
authors  the  interpretation  of  whose  works  is,  from  their  antiquity, 
attended  with  some  difficulty,  to  abstain  from  charging  them  with 
contradictions  and  absurdities,  if  by  a  patient  and  careful  exami¬ 
nation  and  comparison  of  their  statements,  and  by  an  application 
of  any  fair  principle  of  interpretation,  the  necessity  of  adducing 
such  charges  can  be  avoided.  But  infidels  have  always  treated 
the  sacred  Scriptures  upon  the  opposite  principle,  of  putting  down, 
without  inquiry  or  comparison,  everything  as  a  contradiction  or 
absurdity  which  at  first  sight,  and  taken  by  itself,  presented  any 
appearance  of  something  of  this  sort.  With  this  view  they  have 
sometimes  condescended  to  take  advantage  of  ambiguities  and 
defects  in  the  translation  in  common  use,  and  of  changes  in  the 
meaning  of  words,  since  the  translation  was  executed.  This  led 
Bishop  Horne,  in  his  Letters  on  Infidelity,  to  complain  of  it  as  a 
great  hardship  that  infidels  would  not  take  the  trouble  of  acquiring 
some  little  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  before  they  began  to 
make  objections  to  the  statements  of  the  Bibl^,  and  thus  save  the 
clergy  from  the  trouble  of  exposing  their  ignorance.  We  have 
said  that  the  French  infidels  have  dealt  largely  in  this  mode  of 
assailing  Christianity,  by  distorting  and  misrepresenting  particular 
passages  of  Scripture,  so  as  to  bring  out  of  them  contradictions 
and  absurdities;  and  indeed  this  has  been  the  mode  of  attack 
chiefly  resorted  to  whenever  attempts  have  been  made  to  spread 
infidelity  among  the  people  generally. 

It  was  mainly  in  this  form  that  infidelity  appeared  in  this 
country  at  the  era  of  the  French  Bevolution  ;  and  any  subsequent 
attempts  that  have  been  made  to  propagate  it  among  us  have  been 
conducted  chiefly  in  the  same  way.  Paine’s  Age  of  Reason  is  the 


PAINE^S  AGE  OF  REASON. 


247 


best  known  and  most  popular  work  in  our  language  that  has  been 
devoted  to  the  object  of  convicting  the  Bible  of  absurdities  and 
inconsistencies,  or  holding  it  up,  to  use  his  own  daring  language, 
as  “  a  book  of  lies,  wickedness,  and  blaspheming  ;  and  though  the 
infamous  character  of  the  author,  and  the  coarse  scurrility  and 
offensively  daring  blasphemy  of  the  book  proved  in  some  measure 
an  antidote  to  its  poison,  yet  it  is  written  in  a  very  palpable 
plausible  style,  fitted  to  be  popular  among  persons  who  have 
not  much  refinement,  and  it  accomplished  undoubtedly  a  great 
deal  of  mischief.  It  was  answered  by  two  eminent  men.  Bishop 
Watson,  and  Scott  the  commentator — the  former  in  his  Apology  for 
the  Bible,  and  the  latter  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Bivine  Inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  a  work  of  which  the  author  afterwards 
published  an  abridged  edition,  in  which  much  that  bore  special 
reference  to  Paine’s  book  was  omitted.  These  are  both  valuable 
works.  Watson’s  has  been  much  the  more  popular  of  the  two, 
chiefly  because  of  its  style.  Scott’s,  in  the  original  edition,  contains 
a  greater  amount  of  useful  information,  and  of  patient  discussion 
of  scriptural  statements,  and  is  based  upon  sounder  principles,  as  it 
maintains  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  which  Watson  virtually 
abandons.  It  was  about  the  time  when  this  species  of  infidelity 
prevailed  to  some  extent  in  this  country  that  Paley’s  great  works 
upon  this  subject  appeared — first,  his  Horce  Paulinoe,  and  then 
liis  Evidences.  While  infidels  were  triumphing  in  the  alleged 
inconsistences  of  the  Scriptures,  as  proving  that  the  whole  narrative 
was  a  fiction,  Paley,  with  admirable  skill,  brought  to  light  and 
unfolded  a  series  of  latent  harmonies,  of  undesigned  coincidences, 
which  established  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  whatever 
difficulties  may  attach  to  the  interpretation  of  some  particular 
passages,  the  Old  Testament  history  rests  upon  a  solid  and  sub¬ 
stantial  basis  of  truth  and  reality ;  that  the  men  who  are  there 
brought  before  us  lived  and  acted  in  the  situation  and  circum¬ 
stances,  sustained  the  relations  to  each  other,  and  were  engaged  in 
the  occupations,  which  are  there  described.  This  important  service 
Paley  rendered  in  his  Horce  Paulince.  In  like  manner,  when  the 
discussion  about  the  truth  of  Christianity  had  dwindled  down  very 
much  into  an  affair  of  outposts,  an  examination  of  obscure  texts, 
a  mere  discussion  of  difficulties,  Paley  saw  the  propriety  and 
importance  of  turning  men’s  attention  to  the  foundations  of  the 


248 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


subject,  to  the  main  citadel  of  the  Christian  evidences,  to  the  body 
and  mass  of  the  direct  historical  and  miraculous  proof  by  which 
the  truth  of  Christianity  is  established ;  and  in  his  work  upon  the 
evidences  he  has  brought  out  the  substance  of  this  proof  with 
inimitable  clearness  and  cogency.  We  have  repeatedly  had 
occasion  to  refer  to  this  work  of  Paley’s,  and  to  point  out  its 
excellencies,  as  well  as  to  advert  to  some  of  its  defects.  We  refer 
to  it  now  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  remarking,  that  the  state  of 
the  controversy  at  that  time,  as  brought  out  in  the  brief  sketch 
that  has  been  laid  before  you,  seems  to  us  greatly  to  enhance  the 
intrinsic  merit  of  the  work,  indicating,  as  it  does,  that  Paley  had 
a  clear  perception  of  what  the  occasion  demanded,  and  was  fully 
alive  to  the  seasonableness  of  such  a  work  as  that  which  he  has 
executed  with  such  singular  success.  It  is  right  that  such  works 
as  Paine^s  should  be  answered,  and  that  such  works  as  Watson’s 
and  Scott’s  should  be  published  ;  but  it  is  necessary  also,  and  not 
the  least  so  while  such  discussions  as  these  are  going  on,  that  men 
should  be  reminded  that  the  great  question,  whether  Christianity 
be  indeed  a  revelation  from  God,  must  be  decided  upon  broader 
and  higher  grounds  ;  and  that,  even  though  greater  difficulties 
attached  to  some  particular  portions  of  Scripture  than  have  ever 
been  proved  to  exist,  we  would  still  have  abundant  and  conclusive 
evidence — evidence  that  could  neither  be  overthrown  nor  under¬ 
mined — that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  promised  to  the 
Fathers,  and  that  he  was  sent  by  God  into  the  world  to  reveal  to 
us  the  divine  will  for  our  salvation. 

We  have  now  only  to  advert  briefly  to  German  infidelity,  and 
under  this  head  we  comprehend  not  only  that  open  and  avowed 
infidelity  which  expressly  declares  Christianity  to  be  a  fraud,  and 
Christ  and  his  apostles  to  be  imposters,  but  likewise  neology  or 
rationalism,  though  advocated  by  men  who  are  ministers  and  pro¬ 
fessors  of  Christian  theology.  Men  who  not  only,  like  the  Socinians, 
refuse  to  receive  any  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  but  what  they 
in  their  wisdom  are  pleased  to  consider  reasonable,  but  who  more¬ 
over  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles  and  prophecies,  and  of  any 
immediate  or  supernatural  revelation  of  God’s  will  to  men,  and 
who  ascribe  the  peculiar  way  and  manner  in  which  these  subjects 
are  commonly  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  to  the  influence  of  the  ignorant  and  irrational  notions 


GERMAN  RATIONALISM, 


249 


which  then  generally  prevailed  upon  these  subjects  (some  of  them 
being  of  opinion  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  shared  in  this  ignor¬ 
ance  and  irrationality  ;  and  others,  that  they  merely  accommodated 
their  statements  to  it),  are  undoubtedly  infidels,  and  ought  ever 
to  be  regarded,  spoken  of,  and  treated  as  such.  Their  infidelity  is 
aggravated  by  the  grossest  dishonesty  and  hypocrisy  in  pretending 
to  be  Christians  and  believers  in  revelation ;  and  they  would  cer¬ 
tainly  be  entitled  to  rather  more  respect  if  they  threw  off  the 
^  mask  altogether.  The  foundations  of  German  rationalism,  or  anti¬ 
supernaturalism  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  are  a  denial  of  God’s 
ever  interposing,  immediately  or  supernaturally,  in  the  affairs  of 
this  world,  or  making  any  immediate  or  supernatural  revelation  of 
his  will  to  men ;  and  an  assertion  of  the  supremacy  of  human 
reason,  i.e,  of  their  own  reason,  as  the  only  ultimate  test  or  stand¬ 
ard  of  what  men  ought  to  believe  and  practise ;  and  in  illustrating 
and  defending  these  infidel  views  they  have  not  been  able,  with 
all  their  ingenuity  and  learning,  to  produce  anything  more  satis¬ 
factory  and  conclusive  than  what  had  been  urged  by  Spinoza,  Tin- 
dal,  and  Morgan,  and  what  had  been  long  ago  answered  by  the 
defenders  of  revelation.  As  some  people  in  this  country  seem  to 
entertain  a  sort  of  notion  that  there  is  something  new  and  peculi¬ 
arly  formidable  in  this  modern  German  rationalism, it  maybe  worth 
while  to  advert  to  some  of  the  proofs  which  can  be  adduced  that 
it  is  really  nothing  else  than  old  infidelity,  with  scarcely  even  a 
new  dress  put  upon  it.  I  shall  not  give  you  any  quotations  from 
Spinoza’s  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  though  many  passages 
are  to  be  found  there  which  are  very  appropriate;  but  will  confine 
myself  to  some  statements  of  Tindal  and  Morgan,  which  can  be 
given  in  English  (Leland’s  View,  pp.  75,  86,  87,  89,  94.  Preface 
to  Morgan’s  Moral  Philosopher), 

Leland,  giving  an  abstract  of  Tindal’s  opinions  (p.  75),  says: — 

“  This  author  has  endeavoured  to  subvert  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Christian  scheme,  by  shewing  that  there  neither  is  nor  can  be  any  external 
revelation  at  all  distinct  from  what  he  calls  the  internal  revelation  of  the  law 
of  nature  in  the  hearts  of  all  mankind  ;  that  such  external  revelation  is 
absolutely  needless  and  useless  ;  that  the  original  law  and  religion  of  nature 
is  so  perfect  that  nothing  can  possibly  be  added  to  it  by  any  subsequent 
external  revelation  whatever.  And  as  he  thus  endeavoureth  to  set  aside 
all  external  supernatural  revelation  as  needless  and  useless,  and  all  pre¬ 
tences  as  vain  and  groundless,  so  he  particularly  setteth  himself  to  expose 


250 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


the  revelation  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments.  He  attempteth  to  invalidate  the  original  proofs  on  which  the  authority 
of  that  revelation  is  founded,  and  particularly  that  which  is  drawn  from  the 
miracles  that  attested  it.  And  he  also  taketh  pains  to  prove  that  we  cannot 
possibly  have  any  assurance  that  this  revelation  is  transmitted  to  us  in  a 
manner  which  may  be  safely  depended  upon.  He  examineth  the  revelation 
itself,  and  endeavoureth  to  shew  that  it  is  uncertain  and  obscure  ;  that  its 
precepts  are  delivered  in  a  loose,  general,  undetermined  manner,  so  as  to  be 
incapable  of  giving  clear  directions  to  the  bulk  of  mankind  ;  that^  far  from 
being  of  use,  as  a  rule,  to  direct  men  in  faith  and  practice,  the  Scriptures 
are  only  fit  to  perplex  and  misinform  them,  and  that  they  tend  to  give 
them  only  wrong  and  unworthy  apprehensions  of  the  Deity,  and  the  duty 
they  owe  him.” 

Again,  giving  an  abstract  of  the  views  advocated  in  Morgan’s 
Moral  Philosopher,  Leland  says  (pp.  86,  87) : — 

“  By  several  passages  of  his  book,  it  appeareth  that  by  revelation  he  under- 
standeth  any  discovery  of  truth,  in  what  way  soever  a  man  comes  by  it,  even 
though  it  be  by  the  strength  and  superiority  of  his  own  natural  faculties,  so 
that  all  that  have  discovered  rational  or  moral  truth  by  their  own  study  and 
application  in  the  use  of  their  natural  faculties,  may  be  said,  according  to  this 
account  of  it,  to  have  had  the  light  of  revelation.  Supposing  any  persons  to 
have  been  extraordinarily  sent  of  God  to  make  a  discovery  of  his  will  concerning 
truth  or  duty,  whatever  credentials  they  produce  to  prove  their  divine  mission, 
we  are  not  to  receive  anything  upon  that  authority,  no  more  than  if  they  were 
not  thus  extraordinarily  sent  of  God.  The  doctrines  and  laws  they  deliver 
as  from  God,  in  whatsoever  way  they  are  attested  and  confirmed,  are  really 
and  entirely  on  the  same  footing  with  the  opinions  of  philosophers  or  moralists 
who  do  not  pretend  to  be  extraordinarily  sent  of  God  at  all — i.e.  we  are  to 
believe  the  doctrines  they  teach  if  upon  examining  them  we  find  them  to  be 
true  by  reasons  drawn  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  we  are  to  submit  to 
their  precepts  and  directions  if  upon  considering  them  we  are  satisfied  that 
they  tend  to  our  own  advantage  and  happiness,  but  their  authority  abstractly 
from  the  reason  of  the  thing  must  have  no  weight  to  determine  us.” 

“  As  to  our  Saviour’s  miracles,  this  writer  pretendeth,  contrary  to  Christ’s 
own  most  express  declarations,  that  he  did  not  appeal  to  them  as  proofs  of 
his  divine  mission  ”  (p.  94). 

“As  to  the  New  Testament,  though  he  frequently  affecteth  to  speak  with 
great  veneration  of  Jesus  Christ,  yet  he  insinuateth  very  base  and  unworthy 
reflections  upon  his  personal  character  ;  that  he  pretended  to  be  the  Messiah 
foretold  by  the  prophets,  though  he  very  well  knew  that  these  prophets  had 
only  spoken  of  a  temporal  Jewish  prince  who  was  to  arise  and  reign  in  Judea, 
and  that  accordingly  he  suffered  himself  to  be  carried  about  by  the  mob  for 
a  twelvemonth  together,  and  did  not  renounce  that  character  till  his  death, 
when  he  absolutely  disclaimed  his  being  the  Messiah  foretold  in  the  pro¬ 
phetical  writings,  and  died  upon  that  renunciation.  As  to  the  apostles,  the 


GERMAN  RATIONALISM. 


251 


first  authorised  teachers  and  publishers  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  he  affirms 
that  they  themselves  never  so  much  as  pretended  to  be  under  the  unerring 
guidance  and  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  that  they  differed  among 
themselves  about  the  most  concerning  parts  of  revelation,  and  preached  differ¬ 
ent  and  even  contrary  gospels  ;  and  that  all  the  apostles,  except  St  Paul, 
preached  what  he  calls  the  Jewish  gospel,  viz.,  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  Jewish  Messiah — i.e.  the  national  prince  and  deliverer  of  the  Jews.  This, 
which  he  all  along  explodes  as  false  and  absurd,  he  represents  as  the  only 
proper  essential  article  of  the  Christian  faith.  As  to  the  attestations  given 
to  our  Saviour’s  divine  mission,  and  to  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  apostles, 
by  miracles,  prophecy,  and  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 
absolutely  denieth  them  to  be  any  proof  at  all”  (p.  89). 

Now,  these  are  just,  almost  in  the  very  words,  the  fundamental 
principles  of  German  rationalism  as  they  are  to  be  found,  for 
example,  in  Wegscheider’s  Institutiones  Tkeologice  Ghristiance 
Dogmaticce,  usually  reckoned  the  text-book  of  that  infidel  system, 
and  the  author  of  which  is  still  professor  of  Christian  theology  at 
Halle.  But  though  German  rationalism  is  thus,  in  substance,  and 
as  to  its  fundamental  principles,  just  old  infidelity,  there  are  two 
things  about  it  which  are  new — first,  that  it  is  broached  and 
defended  by  men  who  call  themselves  Christians,  who  profess  to 
believe  in  some  sense  in  Christ  and  revelation,  and  who  hold  the 
offices  of  ministers  and  professors  of  Christian  theology.  It  is 
true  that  some  of  the  English  deists  in  the  early  part  of  last  cen¬ 
tury  did  occasionally  express  some  respect  for  Christianity,  and 
make  something  like  a  profession  of  believing  it.  But  besides 
that  their  conduct  in  this  matter  wanted  the  aggravation  of  their 
holding  the  offices  of  ministers  and  professors  of  Christian  theology, 
the  sort  of  profession  they  made  of  Christianity  could  scarcely  be 
reckoned  an  act  of  dishonesty  or  hypocrisy,  for  it  was  not  usually 
made  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  any  wish  or  expectation  that 
they  should  be  believed  ;  whereas  the  German  rationalists,  with  all 
calmness  and  gravity,  as  if  they  had  no  doubt  of  their  own  honesty, 
and  as  if  they  expected  every  one  to  believe  them  sincere,  profess 
their  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  revelation,  when 
yet  they  mean  nothing  more  than  this,  that  Christ  was  a  superior 
Socrates  or  Confucius,  who  was  possessed  of  higher  talents  than 
most  men,  who  struck  out  some  better  views  upon  religion  and 
morality  than  had  before  been  generally  entertained  in  the  world, 
and  whose  labours  have  been  blessed  by  God  in  his  ordinary 


252 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


providence  for  diffusing  improved  notions  upon  these  subjects  more 
generally  over  the  world. 

Another  thing  that  is  in  a  great  measure  new  in  German 
infidelity,  though  some  approaches  towards  it  are  to  be  found 
among  the  English  deists,  is,  that  their  infidelity  is  all  based 
upon  and  derived  from  the  Bible  itself.  There  is  scarcely  any 
one  of  their  infidel  positions  for  which  they  do  not  appeal  to 
the  authority  of  Scripture;  and  their  gross  perversions  of  the 
word  of  God  to  the  support  of  infidelity  constitutes  one  of  the 
greatest  aggravations  of  the  guilt  that  attaches  to  them.  They 
never  scruple  indeed  to  distort  and  pervert  the  meaning  of 
Scripture  in  order  to  find  in  it  contradictions  and  inconsistencies ; 
and  they  pay  no  regard  to  its  authority  when  it  stands  in  the 
way  of  any  of  their  own  notions,  but  by  the  same  distorting  and 
perverting  process  by  which  they  have  continued  to  extract  from 
it  so  many  contradictions,  they  sometimes  endeavour  to  shew  that 
it  favours  even  their  own  infidel  notions.  As  we  are  sometimes 
apt  in  this  country  to  entertain  a  high  idea  of  the  exegetical 
skill  of  these  men,  and  as  they  have  undoubtedly  in  some  respects 
rendered  some  service  to  the  cause  of  scriptural  interpretation, 
it  may  not  be  altogether  unprofitable  to  illustrate  these  obser¬ 
vations  by  one  or  two  specimens,  which  will  not  only  confirm 
what  has  been  said,  but  also  shew  how  inadequate  mere  philological 
learning  is  to  guide  men  to  the  meaning  of  God’s  word,  and  how 
sufficient  even  an  ordinary  share  of  common  sense  is,  when 
rightly  employed,  for  guarding  men  against  being  misled  even 
by  learned  critics. 

Wegscheider  lays  down  the  position  (p.  190),  that  Christ 
himself  decidedly  repudiated  the  idea  of  any  faith  or  belief  in  his 
claims  being  produced  by  his  miracles,  denies  that  he  appealed  to 
them  in  support  of  the  divine  origin  of  his  mission,  and  appeals 
in  support  of  this  position  to  the  following  texts : — Matt.  xii. 
88-41,  and  the  parallel  passages  in  the  other  Gospels ;  John  ii. 
18-22,  iv.  48,  xiv.  12,  and  to  the  two  or  three  cases  in  which  he 
forbade  those  whom  he  had  miraculously  healed  to  tell  it  to  any 
one.  Wegscheider  at  the  same  time  hints  that  he  is  aware  that 
there  are  other  statements  of  our  Saviour  which  cannot  be  recon¬ 
ciled  with  this  notion ;  but  still  he  adduces  these  passages  as 
sufficient  to  prove  that  our  Saviour  scouted  the  idea  that  miracles 


GERMAN  RATIONALISM. 


253 


were  either  fitted  or  intended  to  establish  the  truth  of  his  claims. 
Again,  the  same  author,  having  laid  down  the  positions  that  there 
never  have  been  any  real  predictions  of  future  events,  and  that 
there  are  no  materials  whatever  to  be  found  in  alleged  prophecies, 
and  in  their  alleged  fulfilment,  for  shewing  that  Christ  had  a 
divine  commission  in  the  sense  commonly  attached  to  these  words, 
adduces  this,  among  other  proofs  of  his  doctrine  (p.  198),  that 
Christ  had  a  low  opinion  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  parsim 
honorifice  judicavit”),  and  that  the  apostles  declared  prophecy 
to  be  obscure  and  imperfect.  The  proof  of  the  first  of  these 
points  is  Matt.  xi.  11 ;  and  the  proof  of  the  second  is  to  be  found 
in  the  following  passages  : — Acts  i.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xiii.  9 ;  2  Pet.  i.  19  ; 
Matt.  xi.  11 ;  Luke  vii.  28. 

We  shall  give  only  another  instance.  It  is  a  favourite  idea 
of  the  German  rationalists,  and  is  another  specimen  of  their 
infidelity,  that  the  system  of  doctrine  which  is  contained  in  the 
Bible  is  capable  of  progressive  and  indefinite  improvement;  that 
as  it  stands  in  the  Bible  it  is  mixed  up  with  many  crude  and 
ill- digested  notions,  such  as  might  be  expected  to  proceed  from 
men  who  lived  in  a  comparatively  rude  and  uncultivated  age,  but 
that,  with  the  march  of  intellect  and  the  progress  of  literature 
and  science,  men  may  be  expected  to  be  better  able  to  separate 
the  chaff  from  the  wheat,  to  throw  off  what  savours  of  an  unculti¬ 
vated  age,  and  is  traceable  merely  to  local  or  temporary  influences, 
and  to  bring  out  fully  from  the  Scriptures  a  system  of  pure  and 
rational  Christianity. 

Wegsch eider  (pp.  99  and  109)  having  laid  down  these  doctrines, 
proceeds  to  prove  them,  and  appeals  in  proof  of  their  truth — 
first,  to  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  which  is  constantly 
striving  after  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  things ;  and  then, 
second,  to  the  express  declaration  (disserta  effatd)  of  Jesus  Christ 
himself  and  his  apostles.  And  these  express  declarations  are  first 
of  all  Matt.  ix.  16,  17 ;  and  then  some  passages  in  which  Christ 
and  his  apostles  commend,  as  he  says,  the  use  of  reason,  viz.. 
Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth  ;  Take  heed  how  ye  hear;  Are  ye 
also  yet  without  understanding  1  Why  even  of  yourselves  judge 
ye  not  what  is  right?  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  to  you, 
but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now  ;  When  that  which  is  perfect  is 
come,  then  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away  ;  Proving 


254 


NINETEENTH  LECTURE. 


what  is  acceptable  unto  the  Lord ;  Prove  all  things,  hold  fast 
that  which  is  good  ;  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits, 
whether  they  are  of  God/"  These  are  the  express  declarations 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  proving,  it  seems,  that  Christianity  is 
to  be  greatly  improved  by  the  march  of  intellect,  and  that  in  the 
progress  of  mental  cultivation,  a  much  better  and  purer  system  of 
doctrine  may  be  brought  out  of  the  Bible  than  former  ages  have 
enjoyed.  Were  it  not  for  the  melancholy  exhibition  of  daring 
depravity  which  such  views  and  such  a  mode  of  treating  Scrip¬ 
ture  presents,  and  for  the  reverence  ever  due  to  the  subject  which 
is  thus  handled,  even  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth 
for  ever,  we  would  be  strongly  tempted  to  laugh  at  the  ridiculous 
absurdity  of  these  gross  distortions  of  the  plain  statements  of 
Scripture,  especially  considering  that  they  come  from  men  with 
very  high  pretensions,  both  to  reason  and  to  learning.  These 
perversions  of  Scripture  are  put  forth  by  one  of  the  most  eminent 
living  rationalists,  in  what  is  commonly  reckoned  the  standard 
text-book  of  the  system  ;  and  they  are  put  forth  with  perfect 
calmness,  gravity,  and  seriousness,  as  if  they  clearly  and  conclu¬ 
sively  established  the  positions  in  support  of  which  they  are 
adduced.  They  illustrate  what  I  have  said  about  the  thorough 
and  daring  infidelity  of  German  rationalists ;  and  they  shew  also 
how  little  weight  is  due  to  the  authority  of  such  men  in  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  when  they  are  so  evidently  given  up 
to  strong  delusion  that  they  should  believe  a  lie,  and  when,  with 
all  their  pretensions  to  the  possession  of  a  reason  which  is  fully 
adequate  to  improve  the  system  of  Christianity  as  left  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  and  with  the  undoubted  possession  of  great 
philological  learning,  they  are  so  manifestly  incapable  of  exercising 
common  sense  and  ordinary  discretion  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
plain  statements  of  Scripture.  It  may  be  safely  asserted  that 
more  irrational  and  more  thoroughly  despicable  displays  in  the 
way  of  interpreting  Scripture,  and  deducing  doctrines  from  its 
statements,  than  those  now  quoted  from  Wegscheider,  are  not  to 
be  found  in  the  works  of  the  lowest  and  most  illiterate  English 
infidels.  Such  men  as  these  are  certainly  not  to  be  the  improvers 
of  Christianity ;  and,  with  all  their  learning,  they  need  not  be 
greatly  feared  by  those  who  tremble  at  God’s  word,  and  who  set 
themselves  to  investigate  its  meaning  with  a  thorough  conviction 


GERMAN  RATIONALISM. 


255 


of  its  divine  origin  and  authority,  and  with  a  deep  sense  of  their 
dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of  truth  for  understanding  its  meaning 
and  feeling  its  power. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  it  is  right  to  mention  that  there  is 
one  department  in  which  German  infidelity  has  specially  laboured, 
and  in  which  perhaps  it  has  done  more  real  mischief  than  in 
almost  any  other,  and  that  is  in  undermining  the  authority  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  and  trying,  by  all  sorts  of  arguments,  external, 
and  internal,  to  overturn  the  claims  of  the  particular  books  of 
Scripture,  or  of  particular  portions  of  them,  to  a  place  in  the 
canon,  or  to  any  respect  and  influence  whatever.  This  subject  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  consider  more  fully  afterwards.  At  present 
I  would  merely  warn  you  of  it,  and  warn  you,  moreover,  that 
many  German  writers  who  are  not  rationalists  or  infidels,  often 
advocate  very  loose  and  dangerous  views,  upon  very  unsatisfactory 
and  precarious  grounds,  with  respect  to  the  various  topics  compre¬ 
hended  under  the  general  subject  that  has  now  been  referred  to.^ 

^  J.  A.  Fabricius’  work.  Delectus  argumentorum  et  syllabus  Scriptorum 
qui  veritatem  religionis  Christiannce  asseruerunt.  Grinfield’s  Connection  of  Natu¬ 
ral  and  Revealed  Religion,  gives  a  very  full  body  of  references  to  all  modern 
English  works  on  all  different  departments  of  the  subject.  Houteville’s  La 
Religion  Chretienne  prouvie  par  les  fails,  having  prefixed  to  it  a  historical 
and  critical  discourse  on  the  method  of  the  principal  authors  who  have 
written  for  and  against  Christianity  since  its  origin.  This  discourse  has  been 
translated  into  English,  and  published  separately  ;  it  is  the  only  work  I  know 
that  gives  a  sketch  of  the  literary  history  of  the  evidences  on  a  plan  similar  to 
that  which  I  have  adopted.  It  comes  down  only  to  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century. 


LECTURE  XX. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  ADVICES  ON  THE  SUBJECT 
OF  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES. 

I  HAVE  laid  before  you,  in  the  preceding  lectures,  an  outline  of 
the  principal  topics  which  enter  into  an  exposition  of  the 
whole  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  or  of  the  grounds  of  the 
claim  put  forth  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles  that  he  should  be 
received  as  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  and  as  the  Messiah 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  prophecies,  seeking  especially  to 
point  out  their  connection  and  relations  to  each  other ;  and  like¬ 
wise  a  sketch  of  the  literary  history  of  the  subject,  including  a 
notice  of  some  of  the  most  important  works  connected  both  with 
the  attacks  of  infidels  upon  Christianity,  and  the  defence  of  it  by 
its  friends.  All  the  different  topics  which  have  thus  been  brought 
under  your  notice  it  is  your  duty  more  or  less  fully  to  investigate  ; 
aud  some  at  least  of  the  most  important  works  which  have  been 
recommended  to  you,  it  is  your  duty,  according  as  you  may  have 
time  and  opportunity,  to  peruse.  There  are  some  general  con¬ 
siderations  connected  with  the  study  of  this  subject  to  which  I 
would  now  invite  your  attention.  And  first,  let  me  impress  upon 
you  this  consideration,  that  many  valuable  books  have  been  written 
in  defence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  which  exhibit  little  or 
nothing  of  the  spirit  of  genuine  Christianity.  There  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  many  men  have  written  ably  and  con¬ 
clusively  in  defence  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion,  who  have  never  studied  the  revelation  itself,  or  been  brought 
in  any  measure  under  its  practical  influence.  When  God  revealed 
his  will  to  fallen  men,  it  was  with  this  view,  that  they  knowing 
him  fully  might  be  led  to  worship  and  glorify  him  ;  that  knowing 


CA  UTIONS, 


257 


the  scheme  of  salvation  which  he  had  devised  and  executed,  they 
might  embrace  its  offers  and  conform  to  its  provisions  ;  that  know¬ 
ing  Him,  who  is  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life,  they  might 
not  only  rest  on  him  alone  for  salvation,  but  also  have  the  same 
mind  which  was  also  in  him,  and  walk  even  as  he  walked.  A 
belief  or  conviction  that  the  Christian  revelation  came  from  God 
is  valuable  or  important  only  in  so  far  as  it  binds  and  actually 
leads  men  to  investigate  the  revelation  itself,  or  the  system  of 
doctrines  and  precepts  which  are  there  propounded  upon  God’s 
authority ;  to  acquire  a  thorough  knowledge  of  its  contents,  and 
to  submit  the  understanding,  the  heart,  and  the  life  to  its  prac¬ 
tical  influence. 

In  so  far  as  all  this  is  not  effected  in  any  case,  God’s  revelation 
has  failed  of  producing  its  proper  effect ;  and  the  man  to  whom 
this  statement  may  ultimately  apply  will  assuredly  fail  in  deriving 
any  real  permanent  benefit  from  the  revelation  having  been  made 
known  to  him ;  nay,  will  incur  the  additional  guilt  of  having 
rejected  it.  And  yet  there  are  very  many  who  profess  to  believe 
in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation ;  and  not  a  few  who  have 
argued  learnedly  and  ably  in  support  of  it,  and  defended  its  truth 
and  divine  origin  against  adversaries,  who  do  not  seem  to  have 
ever  felt  that  they  were  under  any  obligation  to  examine,  to 
understand,  and  to  submit  to  the  contents  or  substance  of  the 
revelation  ;  who  have  certainly  never  attained  to  any  right  views 
of  its  meaning,  and  who  exhibit  no  appearance  of  being  influenced 
in  their  character  and  conduct  by  the  views  of  doctrine  and  duty 
which  are  there  opened  up.  Many  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity 
seem  never  to  have  examined  with  care  and  attention  what  they 
themselves  had  conclusively  proved,  in  opposition  to  adversaries, 
to  have  come  from  God ;  and  many  more,  whatever  degree  of 
attention  they  may  have  given  to  the  study  of  the  revelation, 
have  utterly  failed,  of  course  through  something  sinful  on  their 
part,  in  understanding  its  real  meaning  and  import,  and  in  being 
brought  under  its  practical  power.  Cases  of  this  sort  cannot  be 
easily  explained  upon  the  ordinary  principles  of  reason ;  and  can 
be  accounted  for  only  by  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  enmity  of 
the  carnal  mind  against  God,  and  against  God’s  truth,  i.e.  against 
correct  views  of  God’s  character,  government,  and  ways.  The 

R 


258 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


conduct  indeed  of  those  who  have  laboured  in  establishing  the 

o 

divine  origin  of  the  Christian  revelation,  but  who  have  never 
seriously  and  carefully  examined  the  revelation  itself,  can  be 
easily  shewn  to  be  irrational  and  inconsistent,  because  the  first 
and  most  obvious  inference  from  the  truth  of  the  divine  origin  of 
the  revelation  is,  that  it  ought  to  be  carefully  examined,  thoroughly 
understood,  and  implicitly  submitted  to.  Their  conduct  indeed  is 
so  irrational  that  it  is  difficult  to  characterise  or  describe  it — i.e. 
there  is  some  difficulty  in  deciding  whether  men  can  be  justly  said 
to  believe  that  the  Christian  revelation  came  from  God,  who, 
having  access  to  the  revelation  itself,  have  never  carefully  investi¬ 
gated  its  meaning,  and  practically  submitted  to  its  authority. 
That  they  do  not  believe  the  revelation  itself  is  very  evident; 
but  how  sane  men  can  be  said  really  and  honestly  to  believe  that 
the  revelation  came  from  God,  who  have  made  no  serious  effort  to 
ascertain  and  comprehend  its  meaning,  it  is  not  easy  to  under¬ 
stand  or  explain.  The  way  in  which  they  practically  deal  with 
the  revelation  would  seem  to  indicate  that,  according  to  the  ordi¬ 
nary  principles  by  which  men  are  influenced,  they  do  not  really 
believe  that  it  came  from  God.  But  in  whatever  way  the  facts 
may  be  stated  or  explained,  it  is  certain  that  many  men  have 
written  in  defence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  who  have  never 
seriously  examined  into  the  meaning  and  import  of  the  revelation 
itself,  or  who,  if  they  have  given  some  degree  of  attention  to  the 
records  of  the  revelation,  have  utterly  failed,  through  their  own 
sin,  in  understanding  its  meaning,  or  in  imbibing  its  spirit.  And 
accordingly  many  important  and  valuable  works  have  been  written 
on  the  evidences,  which,  because  of  the  ability  with  which  they 
discuss  particular  branches  of  the  argument,  because  of  the  amount 
of  the  information  they  contain,  or  the  influence  they  may  have 
exerted  on  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  subject  of  the 
evidences  has  been  since  generally  expounded,  it  may  be  neces¬ 
sary  for  those  who  wish  fully  to  understand  the  subject  to  peruse ; 
but  which,  to  say  the  least,  contain  no  indication  that  their  authors 
were  duly  impressed  with  the  responsibility  connected  with  the 
reception  or  rejection  of  the  revelation  itself,  or  were  living  under 
the  practical  influence  of  the  views  ^ffiich  it  unfolds.  Such  works, 
however  valuable  and  useful  for  the  object  of  aiding  in  acquiring 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  arguments  and  facts  by  which  the 


OA  UTIONS. 


259 


truth  of  Christianity  may  be  established,  have  of  course  no  direct 
tendency  to  promote  the  personal  spiritual  improvement  of  those 
who  read  them,  to  deepen  their  impressions  of  divine  things,  to 
call  forth  and  to  cherish  holy  and  devout  affections,  or  to  encourage 
to  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  life  and  conversation  ;  but  rather  per¬ 
haps  a  tendency  somewhat  the  reverse.  We  have  already  said 
that  there  are  some  books  of  this  sort  which  must  be  read  by 
those  who  would  fully  understand  the  subject  of  the  evidences  of 
Christianity ;  and,  notwithstanding  what  we  have  just  said  about 
their  deficiency,  or  something  worse,  we  do  not  mean  to  retract 
the  statement.  But  in  reading  such  works  you  ought  to  be  alive 
to  the  deficiency  in  point  of  general  spirit  that  may  attach  to 
them,  and  careful  to  guard  against  any  danger  to  which  you 
might  be  exposed. 

We  are  not  indeed  to  expect  in  books  upon  the  evidences  any¬ 
thing  but  a  discussion  of  the  evidences,  not  an  investigation  of 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  or  practical  exhortations  to  duty; 
still  it  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck  with  the  cold  irreligious  and 
merely  rational  or  intellectual  spirit  in  which  very  many  of  the 
works  published  in  defence  of  Christianity  are  written,  and  the 
entire  absence  of  anything  like  a  deep  sense  of  divine  things,  or 
any  anxiety  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  men  by  which  many  of 
them  are  characterised.  Where  these  feelings  or  impressions 
existed  it  might  be  expected  that  they  would  be  more  or  less 
fully  indicated  even  in  works  upon  the  evidences ;  and  the  absence 
of  any  indications  of  these  things  in  so  many  works  on  the  subject 
affords  too  good  ground  for  the  conclusion,  even  though  we  knew 
nothing  more  about  the  authors  than  what  may  be  learned  from 
their  writings  on  the  evidences,  that  they  had  never  penetrated 
beyond  the  mere  external  credentials  of  Christianity,  that  they 
had  no  adequate  sense  of  its  value  for  spiritual  purposes,  and  that 
they  had  not  drunk  largely,  if  at  all,  of  its  holy  and  heavenly 
spirit.  I  think  it  right  to  direct  your  attention  to  this  point,  and 
to  warn  you  against  being  misled  by  the  fact  that  has  now  been 
adverted  to.  You  will  not,  I  trust,  fall  into  the  mistake  of  imagin¬ 
ing  that  because  a  man  has  written  ably  and  learnedly  upon  the 
evidences, — perhaps  may  have  written  the  very  best  book  that  exists 
upon  some  particular  department  of  the  argument, — he  ought  there¬ 
fore  to  be  regarded  as  a  model  of  the  spirit  by  which  a  Christian 


260 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


ought  to  be  animated,  or  of  the  standard  by  which  his  conduct 
ought  to  be  regulated.  You’will  not  suppose  that  because  he  may 
have  conclusively  proved  that  Jesus  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God, 
he  has  himself  sat  at  Jesus’  feet,  and  learned  to  have  the  same 
mind  which  was  also  in  him.  We  have  not  very  many  works 
upon  the  evidences  which  contain  any  very  unequivocal  indica¬ 
tions  that  their  authors  had  drunk  deeply  of  the  true  spirit  of 
Christianity  ;  though  there  are  some  which,  independently  of  their 
other  excellences,  may  be  safely  recommended  as  written  in  a  reli¬ 
gious  spirit,  and  pervaded  by  the  manifestations  of  genuine  scrip¬ 
tural  piety — as,  for  example,  Baxter’s  work  on  the  Evidences,  which 
I  formerly  had  occasion  to  commend  ;  Bogue  on  the  Divine  Autho¬ 
rity  of  the  New  Testament,  Fuller’s  Gospel  its  oivn  Witness, 
Gregory’s  Letters,  and  Mr  Haldane’s  very  valuable  work  on  the 
Evidence  and  Authority  of  Divine  Revelation,  which  contains  a 
great  deal  of  useful  and  important  matter,  set  forth  with  much 
clearness  and  vigour,  and  is  pervaded  by  a  truly  Christian  and 
evangelical  emotion.  I  would  observe,  second,  that  many  works 
on  the  evidences  assert  or  insinuate  very  defective  or  erroneous 
views  on  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  It  has  indeed  been  found 
to  hold,  we  may  say  universally,  that  sound  and  correct  views  of 
the  leading  doctrines  of  Christianity  and  personal  godliness  have 
gone  hand  in  hand ;  that  wherever  men  have  given  unequivocal 
evidence  of  being  habitually  under  the  influence  of  personal  reli¬ 
gion,  there  they  have  in  general  concurred  with  each  other,  and, 
as  we  believe,  with  the  word  of  God,  in  the  views  they  entertained 
of  the  great  leading  features  of  the  doctrines  or  contents  of  revela¬ 
tion.  If  then  many  have  written  in  defence  of  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  who  do  not  seem  to  have  been  much  influenced  by  personal 
religious  principles,  it  is  not  in  the  least  surprising  that  they  should 
have  entertained  erroneous  and  defective  views  of  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  and  that  this  should  have  come  out  still  more  plainly  and 
palpably  than  the  former  in  the  works  they  wrote  upon  the 
evidences. 

We  have  had  occasion  before  to  refer  to  the  fact,  that  amonof 
writers  in  defence  of  Christianity,  especially  the  more  ancient  ones, 
there  was  not  a  sufficiently  clear  and  definite  line  of  demarcation 
preserved  between  the  investigation  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity 
and  the  discussion  of  its  doctrines.  Infidels  have  usually  been 


CA  UTIONS. 


261 


desirous  of  conducting  the  discussion  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 
rather  upon  the  field  of  its  doctrines  than  of  its  direct  and  proper 
evidences,  because  they  think  they  can  produce  something  inge¬ 
nious  and  perplexing  in  the  way  of  proving  that  some  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christianity  are  irrational,  absurd,  contradictory,  and 
inconsistent  with  right  views  of  the  divine  character  and  govern¬ 
ment.  Many  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity  have  too  readily 
and  too  easily  followed  infidels  in  the  path  along  which  they  were 
anxious  to  lead  them.  Not  indeed  that  they  could  altogether  have 
avoided  meeting  their  opponents  upon  this  field,  or  at  once  set 
aside  all  such  objections  as  irrelevant.  When  any  of  the  undoubted 
doctrines  of  revelation  are  objected  to  as  absurd,  contradictory,  or 
opposed  to  right  views  of  God,  it  seems  evident  that  the  objection 
must  be  answered,  so  far  as  to  shew  that  the  doctrine,  not  being 
one  which  on  these  grounds  is  incapable  of  being  proved,  may  be 
true,  and  may  be  sent  to  proof.  But  still,  as  was  formerly 
explained,  defenders  of  Christianity  have  erred  in  not  confining 
their  own  speculations,  and  in  not  insisting  that  infidels  should 
confine  theirs,  within  the  limits  to  which  the  powers  of  man  and 
his  means  of  certain  knowledge  reach,  and  in  not  making  sufficient 
use,  in  dealing  with  such  objections,  of  considerations  derived  from 
the  imperfection  of  the  human  faculties,  the  inadequacy  of  human 
knowledge,  and  the  respect  due  to  the  authority  of  a  direct  revela¬ 
tion  from  God,  the  truth  of  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  had  been 
thoroughly  established  by  its  own  appropriate  evidence — evidence 
which,  upon  the  ground  of  its  own  merits  as  such,  could  not  be 
successfully  or  even  plausibly  assailed.  But  perhaps  the  worst 
effect  of  this  mode  of  discussing  the  subject  was,  that  as  the 
evidences  were  often  taken  up  by  men  who  had  never  carefully 
examined  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  who  knew  and  cared  little 
about  them,  these  men  were  tempted,  in  dealing  with  infidel 
objections,  to  explain  away  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
to  bring  them  down  to  the  level  of  the  standard  of  human  reason, 
to  represent  them  in  the  light  in  which  they  were  likely  to  appear 
most  acceptable  or  least  objectionable  to  presumptuous  infidels. 
In  this  way,  and  for  these  reasons,  you  will  find  in  many  books 
upon  the  evidences  very  erroneous  and  defective  views  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  either  openly  asserted  and  defended,  or 
plainly  insinuated  or  assumed. 


262 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


We  formerly  had  occasion  to  advert  to  the  low  state  of  religion 
in  England,  both  in  the  Established  Church  and  among  the 
generality  of  the  Dissenters,  during  the  prevalence  of  the  deistical 
controversy.  This  low  state  of  religion  both  sprang  from  and 
produced — for  there  was  a  mutual  action  and  re-action  in  the 
matter — very  defective  and  erroneous  views  of  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  Christianity.  Among  the  great  mass  of  those  who, 
at  that  important  era  in  the  history  of  this  subject,  defended  the 
truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  few  if  any  understood  or 
appreciated  the  contents  of  the  revelation  itself,  or  gave  any  very 
satisfactory  indications  of  living  under  its  influence ;  while  not  a 
few  of  them  made  Christianity  so  very  rational  as  that  they  were 
able  to  hold  it  up  to  infidels  as  being  scarcely  anything  else  than 
merely  an  authoritative  republication  of  the  law  of  nature.  We 
had  formerly  occasion  also  to  shew  you  that  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  infidel  rationalism  of  Germany  were  borrowed 
from  Spinoza,  and  from  some  of  the  leading  English  infidels  of 
the  early  part  of  last  century,  especially  Tindal  and  Morgan. 
But  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  way  in  which 
Christianity  was  generally  defended  at  that  time,  as  well  as  the 
principles  on  which  it  was  assailed,  contributed  much  to  the 
spread  of  rationalism  or  infidelity  in  Germany.  We  have  a 
striking  testimony  to  this  effect  from  an  eminent  German  writer, 
Staeudlin,  professor  of  theology  at  Gottingen,  in  his  History 
of  Theological  Knowledge  and  Literature,  part  of  which  has 
been  translated  into  English,  and  published  in  this  country,  v. 
Clark’s  Students'  Cabinet  Library,  vol.  ii.  p.  52. 

“  Most  of  the  English  deists  attacked  only  the  divine  origin,  credibility, 
and  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  the  contents  of  the  sacred 
volume  were  but  in  part  assailed,  as  the  accounts  of  miracles  and  the  system 
of  ecclesiastical  theology  ;  but  the  character  and  the  doctrines  of  Jesus 
himself  were  spared.  The  latter  they  generally  represented  as  a  pure  and 
popular  system  of  deism,  suited  to  the  people  of  the  age.  Most  theologians 
opposed  themselves  to  these  writers,  endeavouring  to  save  what  the  deists 
had  rejected  as  unnecessary  and  unfounded,  and  to  uphold  revelation  and 
not  reason,  as  the  standard  of  religion.  Yet  many  theologians  soon  appeared 
in  England,  who  in  many  points  nearly  agreed  with  the  deists.  It  is  true 
they  did  not  abandon  the  authority,  genuineness,  and  credibility  of  the 
sacred  volume,  and  the  preceptive  and  historical  parts  of  Christianity  ;  but 
they  purged  the  ecclesiastical  system  from  everything  which  appeared  to 
them  inconsistent  with  reason,  and  produced  systems  of  Christian  theology 


OA  UTIOiVS. 


263 


which  were  pervaded  by  this  literal  spirit.  The  constantly  increasing  power 
and  fame  of  the  British  nation  in  the  eighteenth  century  spread  its 
literature  over  all  Europe.  The  writings  of  its  deists  and  its  theologians, 
who  were  termed  latitudinarians,  were  read,  especially  in  Germany,  with 
zeal  and  attention,  and  have,  in  connection  with  other  causes,  produced  that 
great  revolution  in  theology  and  religious  opinion  which  has  proved  more 
thorough  and  general  in  this  country,  and  has  proceeded  further  than  in 
Britain  itself,  and  which  has  hence  spread  its  effects  into  other  lands.  This 
great  change  first  appeared  in  the  German  Protestant  Churches,  whence  it 
was  extended  to  the  German  Catholics.” 

There  were  some  of  these  latitudinarian  divines  who  succeeded 
so  fully  to  their  own  satisfaction  in  making  Christianity  perfectly 
rational  and  quite  unobjectionable  in  its  system  of  doctrines  and 
precepts,  and  in  illustrating  its  utility  and  advantages  in 
promoting  sounder  views  than  had  previously  prevailed  con¬ 
cerning  the  character  and  government  of  God,  and  the  way  in 
which  he  is  to  be  worshipped  and  served,  that  they  not  only 
disregarded  its  peculiar  doctrines  as  a  remedial  scheme,  but 
became  indifferent  about  its  proper  direct  external  evidence  as 
a  supernatural  revelation,  as  if  they  imagined  that  all,  or  nearly 
all,  that  was  valuable  about  it  would  stand  upon  the  footing  of 
its  own  intrinsic  reasonableness  and  utility.  And  in  this  way 
it  has  happened  that  while  some  topics  commonly  comprehended 
under  the  general  head  of  the  internal  evidences  (but  which 
ought  rather  to  be  called  experimental)  have  been  favourite 
subjects  of  investigation  with  the  best  and  holiest  class  of  the 
defenders  of  Christianity,  some  other  views  comprehended  under 
the  same  general  designation  have  been  much  dwelt  upon  by 
some  of  the  most  irreligious  and  unsound  of  those  who  have  come 
forward  as  the  champions  of  revelation.  Hence  too  the  German 
rationalists,  discarding  supernatural  revelation  and  the  super¬ 
natural  proofs  of  it,  profess  to  believe  in  some  sense  in  the 
Christian  revelation  upon  the  ground  of  its  internal  evidence, 
meaning  thereby  the  conformity  of  its  doctrines  and  precepts,  as 
they  have  explained  them,  with  their  own  notions  of  what  is  fit 
and  reasonable  and  useful,  and  taking  care  at  the  same  time  to 
erect  these  notions  of  theirs  into  the  position  of  the  ultimate 
standard  by  which  all  that  seems  to  be  contained  in  the  records 
of  the  revelation  must  be  judged.  It  is  indeed  a  noble  occupation, 
worthy  of  the  highest  powers,  and  fitted  to  render  most  important 


264 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  to  open  up  the  excellence  and  beauty 
of  the  Christian  system,  its  entire  accordance  with  the  highest 
and  most  exalted  conceptions  man  ever  has  formed,  or  can  form, 
of  God  and  holiness,  of  duty  and  happiness,  and  its  thorough 
adaptation  to  the  character,  wants,  and  condition  of  mankind. 
But  then  in  all  attempts  of  this  sort  everything  that  is  really 
valuable  and  important  depends  wholly  upon  the  previous  ques¬ 
tion,  whether  it  be  indeed  the  true  and  real  system  of  Christianity 
as  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  the  excellence  and  suitable¬ 
ness  of  which  men  labour  to  unfold ;  or  whether  it  be  some  system 
of  their  own,  previously  shorn  down  to  the  level  of  human  reason, 
deprived  of  everything  that  is  most  peculiar  in  the  revelation, 
and  accommodated  to  a  great  extent  to  the  notions  and  wishes  of 
its  worst  enemies. 

Many  of  those  who,  in  answer  to  the  objections  of  infidels,  have 
tried  to  defend,  on  grounds  of  reason,  the  reasonableness  of  the 
Christian  system,  or  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  have,  from 
ignorance  and  inattention,  and  still  more  from  those  causes  of 
errors  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  theology,  which  are  generally 
found  connected  with  the  want  or  the  weakness  of  personal 
religious  principle,  propounded  views  upon  these  subjects  that  were 
either  Socinianism,  or  something  very  like  it.  Socinianism  is  the 
natural  religion  of  men  who  have  not  really  submitted  their 
understandings  and  their  hearts  to  the  actual  revelation  contained 
in  the  Scriptures,  who  are  not  living  under  the  influence  of  personal 
religious  principle,  and  who  are  disposed  to  set  up  their  own  reason 
as  the  ultimate  judge  of  the  doctrines  they  profess  to  believe,  but 
who,  for  some  reason  or  other,  are  not  prepared  to  throw  off 
altogether  a  profession  of  Christianity.  Wherever  personal  piety 
and  vital  godliness  sink  to  a  low  ebb,  the  views  of  the  Christian 
system  which  generally  prevail  invariably  assume  a  Socinian  or 
Pelagian,  or  what  is  virtually  the  same  thing,  though  not  so  fully 
developed,  a  Latitudinarian  cast.  This  was  remarkably  the  case 
in  England  during  the  deistical  controversy  of  last  century ;  and 
accordingly,  in  the  writings  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity  during 
that  period,  you  find  many  erroneous  and  defective  views  of  the 
doctrines  of  revelation,  many  attempts  to  shew  how  reasonable 
they  are  when  properly  and  rationally  explained,  i.e.  when  explained 
away ;  how  easily  infidels  might  admit  them  when  freed  from  the 


CA  UTIOiVS. 


265 


corruptions  which  creeds  and  systems  had  introduced  ;  or  in  other 
words — for  this  is  the  real  meaning  of  men  of  this  class  when  they 
use  such  language — when  stripped  of  everything  that  is  myste¬ 
rious,  and  reduced  to  the  level  of  what  is  fully  and  in  every  respect 
comprehensible  by  human  reason.  We  may  illustrate  this  by  an 
example.  The  doctrine  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture  of  God  s  fore¬ 
ordaining  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  electing  of  his  own  good 
pleasure  some  men  to  everlasting  life,  is  one  against  which  the 
carnal  reason  of  men  is  apt  to  rise  in  rebellion,  though  we  believe 
that  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  it  rests  can  be  fully 
established  from  natural  reason,  as  well  as  from  Scripture.  The 
Apostle  Paul  gives  us  very  distinctly  to  understand  that  his  doc¬ 
trine  upon  this  subject  w^as  objected  to  by  the  unbelievers  of  that 
age,  who  put  their  objection  in  this  form — “  Why  doth  he  then  find 
fault  ?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  wdll  V  Modern  infidels  finding 
this  doctrine  very  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  and  being  satisfied 
in  the  exercise  of  their  superior  wisdom  that  the  doctrine  is  irra¬ 
tional  and  absurd,  have  adduced  it  as  an  objection  to  the  truth  of 
the  revelation  which  contains  it.  The  generality  of  the  defenders 
of  Christianity  in  the  early  part  of  last  century  did  not  believe  in 
this  doctrine.  They  joined  with  the  infidels  in  proclaiming  its 
absurdity,  and  laboured  to  prove  that  it  was  not  contained  in 
Scripture,  and  that  of  course  revelation  was  not  responsble  for  it. 
The  following  extract  from  Leland  upon  this  point  is  curious  : — 

“  There  are  several  invidious  charges  brought  by  one  author  against  this 
excellent  person  (^.e.  by  Lord  Bolingbroke  against  the  apostle  Paul).  He  is 
pleased  to  represent  him  as  a  loose  declaimer,  as  a  vain-glorious  boaster,  as 
having  been  guilty  of  great  hypocrisy  and  dissimulation  in  his  conduct 
towards  the  Jewish  Christians,  as  writing  obscurely  and  unintelligibly,  and 
that  where  he  is  intelligible  he  is  absurd,  profane,  and  trifling.  He  particu¬ 
larly  instances  in  his  doctrine  concerning  predestination,  though  he  owns 
that  ‘  this  doctrine  is  very  much  softened,  and  the  assumed  proceedings  of 
God  towards  men  are  brought  almost  within  the  bounds  of  credibility 
by  Mr  Locke’s  exposition  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,’ 
which  he  calls  a  forced  one,  but  oflfers  nothing  to  prove  it  so,  and  acknow¬ 
ledges  that  this  sense  might  be  admitted.”^ 

Now,  observe  what  is  exhibited  here.  Bolingbroke  objects  to 
Pauhs  doctrine  of  predestination  as  absurd  and  profane,  and  yet 
he  is  graciously  pleased  to  allow  that,  as  explained  by  Locke,  the 

1  View  of  Deistical  Writers,  let.  31,  p.  389. 


266 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


doctrine  is  very  much  softened,  and  brought  almost  within  the 
bounds  of  credibility.  Locke  held  thoroughly  unsound  and  erro¬ 
neous  views  in  regard  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
and  laboured  to  shew  that  Paul  did  not  teach  anything  so  absurd 
and  profane  as  what  is  commonly  understood  by  the  doctrine  of 
predestination.  Bolingbroke  was  much  satisfied  by  Locke’s  explana¬ 
tion,  and  so  would  most  other  infidels  have  been,  though  he  had 
discernment  enough  to  retain  a  lurking  suspicion,  which  assuredly 
was  well  founded,  that  the  explanation  was  a  perversion  of  Paul’s 
words ;  and  then  lastly,  Leland  was  quite  satisfied  with  Locke’s 
explanation  ;  and  since  Bolingbroke  admitted  that  this  explana¬ 
tion  brought  the  doctrine  almost  within  the  bounds  of  credibility, 
he  thought  no  farther  answer  necessary  to  Bolingbroke’s  original 
allegation  that  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  as  it  is  commonly 
understood,  and  as  it  seems  to  be  taught  by  Paul,  is  absurd  and 
profane.  This  is  a  specimen  of  the  way  in  which  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel  are  dealt  with  by  many  of  the  defenders  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  It  had  been  much  better,  on  many  accounts,  if  the 
writers  on  the  evidences  had  meddled  less  with  the  contents  of 
revelation  ;  but  since  you  will  find  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
adverted  to,  more  or  less  fully,  and  often  grievously  distorted  and 
perverted,  in  books  which  it  may  be  proper  and  even  necessary  for 
you  to  read,  as  being  valuable  and  important  works  on  the  evi¬ 
dences,  I  think  it  right  to  warn  you  against  paying  much  regard 
to  what  you  may  find  there  upon  the  subject  of  the  doctrines  of 
revelation,  and  to  remind  you  again  that  many  men  have  written 
ably,  learnedly,  and  conclusively  in  support  of  the  external  evi¬ 
dence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  who  are  very  unsafe  guides  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  who  entertained  very  erroneous 
views  in  regard  to  the  substance  of  the  revelation  which  God  has 
made  of  his  will  to  men. 

I  would  observe,  in  the  third  place,  that  there  is  one  important 
topic  more  closely  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  evidences, 
with  respect  to  which  it  is  proper  to  warn  you,  that  very  defective 
and  erroneous  views  are  often  found  in  books  which  treat  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  I  mean  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  Scrip¬ 
tures.  It  is  quite  true,  and  I  have  repeatedly  explained  to  you, 
that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  question  of  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  revelation  and  that  of  the  divine  authority  and  inspira- 


CA  UTIONS, 


267 


tion  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  and  that  a  regard  to  this  distinction 
tends  to  facilitate  a  right  arrangement  and  classification  of  the  proofs. 
It  is  possible  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  might  have 
been  genuine  and  credible  historical  documents,  affording  abundant 
materials  for  establishing  the  divine  mission  of  Christ,  and  might 
even  have  conveyed  to  us  most  important  information  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  revelation  which  he  made  to  men,  though  no 
supernatural  divine  agency  had  been  employed  in  the  production 
of  the  books  themselves,  i.e.  though  they  had  not  been  themselves 
the  word  of  God,  dictated  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Arguments  that  may  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  divine  mission  of 
Jesus  may  not  be  adequate  without  some  additional  steps  in  the 
reasoning  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  objec¬ 
tions  which,  when  adduced  against  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
may  require  to  be  discussed  and  disposed  of,  may  yet  have  no 
bearing  upon  the  general  question  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
All  this  is  true,  and  upon  these  grounds  there  could  be  no  reason 
for  finding  fault  if  men  chose  to  write  books  which  only  estab¬ 
lished  the  truth  of  Christianity  without  professing  to  prove  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  adducing  only  those  arguments 
which  established  the  first,  and  omitting  those  which  bore  specially 
upon  the  second  ;  answering  those  objections  which  were  adduced 
against  the  divinity  of  Christ’s  mission,  but  setting  aside  as  irre¬ 
levant  those  which,  even  if  well  founded,  touched  only  the  divinity 
of  the  Bible. 

Many  writers  on  the  evidences,  however,  have  not  been  con¬ 
tented  with  this,  but  have  virtually  denied  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  have  not  only  deferred  or  put  aside  the  consideration 
of  objections  against  inspiration  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not 
affect  the  general  truth  of  Christianity,  the  only  subject  which 
they  professed  to  be  discussing,  but  have  substantially  admitted 
that,  as  objections  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  these  objec¬ 
tions  could  not  be  answered.  Bishop  Watson,  in  his  Apology  for 
the  Bible,  has  given  up  its  inspiration  as  untenable.  Paley,  in  dis¬ 
cussing  the  objections  founded  upon  erroneous  opinions  imputed 
to  the  apostles,  has  laid  down  the  position,  that  while  we  are  bound 
to  believe  that  the  conclusions  of  an  apostle  are  true,  we  are  under 
no  obligation  to  admit  the  correctness  or  conclusiveness  of  the 
arguments,  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  by  which  he  may  have  estab- 


268 


TWENTIETH  LECTURE. 


lished  them.  Many  other  instances  of  a  similar  kind  might  be 
adduced.  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  which  is  a  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  revealed  and  taught  there,  has  been  generally  rejected, 
or  very  much  explained  away,  by  Socinian  and  Latitudinarian 
divines.  They  have  very  high  ideas  of  the  natural  powers  of  men, 
of  what  they  can  do  without  special  divine  assistance,  and  are  thus 
disposed  to  reckon  the  inspiration  of  the  authors  of  the  books  of 
Scripture  unnecessary.  They  do  not  like  to  be  tied  up  to  an 
implicit  and  absolute  submission  to  whatever  they  find  recorded  in 
the  pages  of  Scripture,  but  prefer  to  have  some  excuse  for  exercising 
their  own  judgment  and  employing  their  own  reason,  not  merely  in 
interpreting  Scripture,  or  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  its  state¬ 
ments,  but  in  deciding  how  far  its  declarations  are  to  be  received. 
And  thus  they  have  been  often  led,  even  while  defending  the 
general  truth  of  Christianity,  to  set  aside  wholly,  or  in  a  great  mea¬ 
sure,  the  divine  authority  of  those  Scriptures  which  were  all  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  and  which  bear  upon  them  so  many  plain 
traces  of  their  divine  original. 

Let  these  considerations  be  kept  in  view,  and  they  will  tend, 
through  God's  blessing,  to  preserve  you  from  danger,  and  to  guide 
you  aright  in  your  investigation  of  the  evidences,  and  in  the  study 
of  the  works  which  it  may  be  necessary  or  expedient  for  you  to 
peruse  upon  these  subjects. 


LECTURE  XXL 


DIVINE  OEIGIN  AND  AUTHOEITY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF 
SCEIPTUEE— EXTEENAL  EVIDENCE. 

IN  directing  your  attention  to  the  evidences  of  Christianity  we 
have  generally  spoken  of  the  leading  proposition  to  be  estab¬ 
lished^  as  this,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  divinely  com¬ 
missioned  teachers,  authorised  by  God  to  make  known  his  will  to 
men.  And  it  is  evident  that  practically  there  is  no  ground  for 
distinguishing  between  Christ  and  his  apostles,  so  far  as  the 
authoritative  communication  of  God’s  wdll  to  men  is  concerned, 
because  we  have  just  the  very  same  evidence  that  Christ  autho¬ 
rised  the  apostles  to  speak  in  his  name,  and  required  our  sub¬ 
mission  to  them  in  communicating  instruction  about  religious 
matters,  as  we  have  that  He  himself  was  sent  and  commissioned 
by  God,  and  claimed  on  that  ground  our  reverence  and  obedience. 
It  is  right  and  necessary  that  we  should  ever  cherish  a  deep  sense 
of  the  vast,  the  immeasurable  superiority  of  Jesus  Christ  above  all 
beings,  human  or  superhuman,  whom  God  has  ever  employed  to 
make  known  his  will  to  men,  above  prophets  and  apostles,  above 
Moses,  and  above  angels,  for  he  hath  been  made  as  much  better 
than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more  excel¬ 
lent  name  than  they  ” — i.e.  he  is  just  as  much  superior  to  the  angels 
in  official  station  as  he  is  in  the  intrinsic  dignity  of  his  nature,  as 
being  the  Son  of  God,  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father,  and 
equal  in  power  and  glory.  But  in  so  far  as  concerns  the  truth 
and  certainty  of  a  revelation  from  God — and  with  this  alone  we 
have  at  present  to  do — the  dignity  of  the  messenger  through  whom 
the  revelation  is  made  is  of  no  great  practical  importance ;  and  if 
it  be  indeed  true,  as  can  be  easily  proved  from  Scripture,  that 


270 


TWENTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


Christ  has  referred  us  to  his  apostles  for  fuller  information  as  to 
the  will  of  God,  and  has  thereby  in  this  respect  virtually  identified 
himself  with  them,  then  we  are  just  as  clearly  and  as  certainly 
bound  to  receive  as  coming  from  God,  and  of  course  as  entitled  to 
our  implicit  submission,  w^hat  they  have  revealed  to  us,  as  what 
he  himself  has  made  known. 

Another  general  consideration  to  be  kept  in  view  is  this,  that 
when  the  great  leading  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  by 
which  more  directly  the  truth  of  Christ’s  divine  commission  is 
established,  such  as  the  miracles  which  Christ  wrought,  and  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  are  admitted  as  having  been  proved 
by  satisfactory  evidence,  there  can  be  no  reason  whatever  why  any 
other  events  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  even  the  most  extra¬ 
ordinary  and  miraculous,  should  be  denied  or  doubted,  since  they 
are  all  clearly  connected  together  as  parts  of  one  complete  and 
consistent  narrative,  and  since  they  all  rest  upon  substantially  the 
same  evidence.  When  convinced  that  Jesus  was  a  teacher  sent 
from  God,  we  can  have  no  doubt  or  hesitation  about  the  apostles 
also  working  miracles,  about  the  Holy  Ghost  descending  upon 
them,  about  their  speaking  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utterance,  about  Paul’s  miraculous  conversion  and  call  to 
the  apostleship,  and  about  his  being  as  fully  authorised  and  quali¬ 
fied  to  reveal  the  will  of  God  as  those  who  had  personally  asso¬ 
ciated  with  J  esus  during  his  life  on  earth. 

In  investigating  the  external  evidences  of  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  we  consider  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  merely  as  a 
collection  of  historical  documents,  containing  at  once  the  declara¬ 
tions  of  the  parties,  and  the  testimonies  of  the  original  witnesses, 
that  we  may  judge  whether  the  facts  there  recorded  are  true,  and 
whether  these  facts  establish  the  claims  which  they  put  forth. 
When  we  consider  the  internal  evidences,  we  contemplate  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  as  containing  a  correct  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  general  system  of  doctrine  and  duty  taught  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  in  this 
system  of  doctrine  and  duty  itself  we  can  discover  any  indication 
that  it  was  not  devised  or  invented  by  men,  and  that  it  proceeded 
from  God.  To  shew  that  we  are  warranted  in  regfarding  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  as  containing  a  correct  account  of  the 
general  system  of  doctrine  and  duty  taught  by  Christ  and  his 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


271 


apostles,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to  prove — first,  that  they 
were  written  by  the  apostles ;  and  second,  that  they  have  been 
transmitted  to  us  without  any  such  alteration  as  to  affect  their 
substantial  integrity ;  and  this  is  done  by  the  same  evidence  by 
which  we  prove  their  genuineness,  by  the  quotations  of  them  in  a 
succession  of  subsequent  authors,  and  by  the  substantial  identity 
of  all  the  MSS.  and  ancient  versions  of  those  books. 

In  virtue  of  the  proof  that  has  been  adduced  of  the  divine 
commission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  we  are  bound  to  receive  as 
infallibly  true  whatever  they  have  made  known  to  us  as  the 
revealed  will  of  God ;  to  believe  all  the  doctrines  which  they  have 
delivered  to  us,  and  to  submit  implicitly  to  all  the  precepts  which 
they  have  enjoined.  They  who  heard  them  were  called  upon,  on 
the  ground  of  the  proof  adduced  of  their  divine  commission,  to 
receive  all  their  instructions  as  coming  from  God  ;  and  we,  having 
conclusive  proof  of  the  divinity  of  their  mission,  are  bound  to  be 
prepared  to  give  their  communications  the  same  reception,  and  to 
proceed  to  investigate  what  means  we  have  of  ascertaining  what 
God  has  revealed  to  us  through  them,  and  what  is  the  will  of  God 
thus  communicated  to  us.  We  have,  in  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  a  record  of  the  instructions  which  they  delivered,  and 
everything  which  they  taught  concerning  doctrine  or  duty,  we  are 
bound  to  receive  as  the  word  of  God,  as  binding  upon  us  by  his 
supreme  authority.  God  revealed  it  to  them ;  he  has  given  us 
abundant  proof  that  he  has  done  so  ;  he  has  taken  care  to  transmit 
to  us  authentic  information  concerning  what  they  declared ;  and 
our  duty  now  is  to  receive  with  implicit  submission  whatever  can 
be  proved  to  have  proceeded  from  them.  When  our  attention  is 
directed  to  the  way  and  the  means  by  which  this  revelation  has 
been  conveyed  to  us,  the  source  from  which  we  obtain  a  knowledge 
of  it,  a  very  important  question  occurs,  viz..  Whether  we  are  to 
regard  and  receive  it  as  the  word  of  God,  not  merely  the  substance 
of  the  information  concerning  doctrine  and  duty  communicated 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  conveyed  to  us  in  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  the  whole  books  themselves  which  compose 
that  volume.  That  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  not  ^ 
only  contain  and  convey  to  us  a  revelation  of  God's  will,  but  that 
they  are  themselves  the  Word  of  God,  stamped  throughout  with 
divine  authority,  because  produced  through  divine  agency,  has 


272 


TWENTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


been  the  general  opinion  of  almost  all  who  have  been  convinced 
of  the  truth  and  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  revelation  ;  and  to 
the  grounds  of  this  persuasion,  the  arguments  by  which  it  can  be 
fully  established,  we  are  now  called  upon  to  advert.  This  question, 
as  we  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  explain,  is  different  from 
that  which  we  have  already  discussed,  and  requires,  in  order  to  its 
decision,  the  introduction  of  some  additional  considerations,  or 
rather  a  further  extension  and  application  of  the  points  that  have 
already  been  proved.  If  God  were  pleased  to  make  a  revelation 
of  his  will  to  men,  it  is  indeed  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  he  would  take  care  that  the  revelation  should  be  committed 
to  writing,  and  transmitted  in  integrity,  and  not  left  to  the  uncer¬ 
tainties  and  contingencies  of  oral  tradition  ;  and  if  so,  he  would 
no  doubt  secure  that  it  should  be  correctly  committed  to  wTiting 
for  preservation  and  transmission,  as  well  as  that  it  should  be 
correctly  promulgated  at  first  by  those  whom  he  might  employ  as 
his  instruments  in  making  it  known  to  men  ;  but  we  could  not 
assert  with  perfect  confidence,  and  upon  abstract  grounds,  a  'priori, 
that  the  writings  in  which  this  revelation  might  be  preserved, 
and  by  which  it  might  be  transmitted,  would  contain  nothing 
else  but  the  revelation  of  God’s  will,  and  would  be  in  all  their 
parts  traceable  to  his  agency  ;  in  other  words,  to  apply  this  prin¬ 
ciple  to  the  matter  in  hand,  it  would  not  at  once  follow,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  because  the  New  Testament  contained  or 
embodied  the  revelation  which  God  made  to  man  through  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  and  afforded  us  sufficient  materials  for  ascertain¬ 
ing  correctly  what  the  substance  of  that  revelation  was,  therefore 
all  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament  were  themselves 
stamped  throughout  with  divine  authority,  as  being  produced  as 
we  have  them  by  God’s  agency.  And  consequently  the  question 
remains.  Can  it  be  proved  that  these  books,  as  they  stand,  and  not 
merely  the  substance  of  the  doctrines  they  contain,  are  the  word 
of  God,  stamped  with  divine  authority  ?  And  if  so,  how  can  this 
be  established  ? 

As,  in  considering  this  question,  we  must  include  not  merely 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the  whole  Bible,  we  must 
first  briefly  advert  to  the  grounds  upon  which  we  believe  in  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  and  the  divine  mission 
of  the  prophets  whose  predictions  form  so  large  a  portion  of 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


273 


the  Old  Testament.  And  the  first  question  here,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  is  not  about  the  divine  authority 
of  the  books  which  compose  the  Old  Testament,  but  about  the 
truth  of  the  divine  mission  of  Moses,  and  the  reality  of  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  succession  of  prophets  in  the  subsequent  periods 
of  the  Jewish  history.  We  do  not  mean  to  discuss  the  subject  at 
any  length,  but  merely  to  advert  to  its  general  nature  and  place  in 
connection  with  the  other  departments  of  the  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  our  religion. 

The  genuineness  and  general  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  may  be  established  independently  of  the  explicit 
and  conclusive  testimony  borne  to  them  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
upon  grounds  similar  to  those  by  which  we  establish  the  genuine¬ 
ness  and  general  authenticity  of  those  of  the  New.  And  to  the 
truth  and  reality  of  those  miraculous  events  by  which  Moses 
professed  to  establish  his  divine  commission,  we  have  the  attes¬ 
tation  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  submitting  to  his  authority,  and 
receiving  his  laws  and  institutions,  upon  the  ground  of  the 
evidence  afforded  by  these  miracles  that  they  came  from  God — 
an  attestation  which  may  be  said  to  have  been  repeated  by  every 
successive  generation  of  Jews  from  the  time  of  Moses  down  to  the 
present  day.  Thus  the  divine  commission  of  Moses  is  established ; 
and  that  there  was  in  the  Jewish  nation  a  succession  of  prophets 
who  received  direct  communications  from  God  is  established  by 
the  predictions  which  it  can  be  proved  they  delivered,  and  which 
were  remarkably  fulfilled  in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the 
other  nations  with  which  they  were  more  or  less  nearly  connected. 
Thus  the  divine  commission  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  may  be 
established  even  independently  of  the  attestation  given  to  it  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  have 
recourse  to  such  a  line  of  argument  upon  this  topic ;  for  having 
once  established  the  divine  mission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
being  on  this  ground  warranted  and  bound  to  believe  whatever 
they  have  declared,  we  have  of  course,  in  their  frequent  and 
unequivocal  attestations  to  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  God  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  revealed  his  will  to  men  by  their  instru¬ 
mentality.  The  attestation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  the 

s 


274 


TWENTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


divine  mission  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  explain  more  fully  afterwards  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
inspiration  and  canonicity  of  the  Bible,  for  it  proves  not  only  that 
God  commissioned  Moses  and  the  prophets  to  reveal  his  will  to 
men,  but  also  moreover  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
given  by  divine  inspiration,  and  are  possessed  of  divine  authority. 
It  is  enough  at  present  to  advert  generally  to  the  way  and  manner 
in  which  it  may  be  proved  that,  as  God  made  known  his  will  to 
men  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  he  did  so  also  by  Moses  and  the 
prophets.  In  turning  from  the  proof  of  the  general  truth  of 
Christianity,  or  of  the  proposition  that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  commissioned  by  God  to  reveal  his  will  to  men,  to  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  origin  and  character  of  the  books  in  which  this 
revelation  is  conveyed  to  us,  we  have  to  distinguish  between  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  these  books,  and  their  inspiration 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
books  of  Scripture  is  often,  perhaps  generally,  used  in  so  wide  a 
sense  as  to  comprehend  the  whole  subject  of  God’s  connection 
with  the  composition  of  the  books,  or  the  whole  of  his  agency  in 
the  production  of  them,  as  distinguished  from  his  connection  with 
the  substance  of  the  revelation  they  contain ;  and  there  is  certainly 
no  impropriety  in  such  a  use  or  application  of  the  word.  But  we 
think  it  may  conduce  to  a  more  distinct  exposition  of  the  whole 
subject,  and  a  better  classification  of  the  proofs,  if  we  advert  in 
.  the  first  place  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of 
Scripture  in  general,  or  to  the  evidence  we  have  of  the  general 
I  position,  that  God’s  agency  and  authority  were  interposed  in  the 
I  production  of  the  books  themselves,  and  not  merely  in  communi¬ 
cating  the  substance  of  the  revelation  they  contain ;  so  that  the 
books  themselves  as  they  stand,  and  not  merely  the  general  system 
of  doctrine  and  duty  which  they  unfold,  may  be  fairly  and  truly 
called  the  word  of  God  ;  and  then,  after  establishing  this,  proceed 
to  consider,  under  the  head  of  insTiTation,  the  less  essential 
though  still  important  question  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  the  agency  of  God  was  interposed  in  the  production  of 
these  books,  or  what  is  usually  discussed  under  the  head  of  the 
nature  and  extent  of  inspiration ;  and  this  will  be  naturally 
followed  by  the  consideration  of  the  subject  of  the  canon,  or  the 
investigation  of  the  questions  connected  with  the  determination 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


275 


of  what  the  books  are  to  which  this  divine  authority  and  inspira¬ 
tion  are  to  be  ascribed.  These  explanations  will,  I  trust,  enable 
you  to  understand  distinctly  the  connection  and  conditions  of  the 
argument,  and  to  see  where  we  are  and  what  we  mean  when  we 
proceed  to  advert  to  the  way  and  manner  of  proving  the  divine 
authority  of  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament. 

The  divine  authority  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  may 
be  proved,  like  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  by  evidence 
external,  internal,  and  experimental;  and  these  divisions  of  the 
evidence  are  analogous  in  their  general  nature  and  character  in 
both  cases.  The  external  evidence  is  that  derived  from  what  we 
know  concerning  the  authors,  and  the  facts  connected  with  the 
composition  of  the  books;  the  internal  from  the  character  and 
contents  of  the  books  themselves ;  and  the  experimental  from  the 
effects  which  these  books  have  produced,  and  are  still  producing. 

The  distinction  that  has  been  sometimes  made  between  the 
evidence  derived  from  places  without  the  Bible,  and  that  derived 
from  places  within  the  Bible  (Chalmers,  vol.  ii.  p.  8)  is  just  as 
useless  here  as  we  shewed  it  to  you  to  be  under  the  former  head, 
and  serves  only  to  introduce  confusion.  There  is  a  clear  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  evidence  derived  from  what  we  can  know  con¬ 
cerning  the  men  by  whom,  and  the  circumstances  in  which,  the 
books  were  composed,  and  that  derived  from  the  actual  contents 
or  substance  of  the  books  themselves  ;  but  under  the  former  of 
these  heads,  which  constitutes  the  external  evidence  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  books,  we  must  of  necessity  include  all  that  we 
know  certainly  concerning  the  history  of  the  authors  and  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  books,  luhether  derived  from  the  statements  of  the 
hooks  themselves,  or  from  any  other  authentic  source  whatever. 
Having  proved  the  divine  commission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
we  are  now  to  regard  them,  not  merely  as  honest  men  and  credible 
narrators  of  history,  but  as  infallible  authorities  in  all  the  state¬ 
ments  they  make  concerning  religious  subjects,  and  to  believe 
implicitly  whatever  information  they  may  convey  to  us  concern¬ 
ing  the  books  of  Scripture,  or  any  other  topic  whatever  in  regard 
to  which  they  advance  a  claim  to  our  submission. 

In  considering  the  external  evidence  of  the  divine  authority  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  one  of  the  first  and  most 
obvious  considerations  that  occurs  to  us  is,  that  those  books  were 


276 


TWENTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


chiefly  composed  by  the  apostles  themselves,  by  the  very  men 
who  were  employed  by  God  to  reveal  to  us  the  system  of  doctrine 
and  duty  which  is  unfolded  in  these  books.  They  are  not  accounts 
of  what  was  said  and  done  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  preserved 
and  transmitted  to  us  by  other  parties.  They  are  the  accounts  of 
the  life  and  discourses  of  Christ,  and  of  the  labours  and  instruc¬ 
tions  of  the  apostles,  recorded  and  transmitted  to  us  by  the  apostles 
themselves.  The  authors  of  these  books  were  the  only  men  whom 
God  employed  to  reveal  his  will,  and  whom  for  that  purpose  he 
furnished  with  abundant  communications  of  his  Spirit.  When 
these  men  explained  the  system  of  Christianity  to  the  people 
whom  they  orally  addressed,  or  when  they  defended  their  cause 
and  their  persons  before  judicial  tribunals,  we  know  that  they 
enjoyed  the  special  presence  and  assistance  of  God,  the  guidance 
and  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that 
they  were  left  destitute  of  the  same  guidance  and  direction  when 
they  sat  down  to  commit  to  writing,  for  the  permanent  instruction 
of  mankind,  the  history  of  the  life  and  discourses  of  their  Master, 
or  when  they  addressed  letters  of  advice  and  direction  to  the 
churches  which  had  been  formed  through  the  success  of  their  oral 
instructions.  It  is  by  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  w^hich  they 
wrote,  and  by  them  alone,  that  the  Christian  revelation  has  been 
transmitted  to  subsequent  ages;  and  if  they  had  the  constant 
presence  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  their  personal  minis¬ 
try  in  proclaiming  the  truth,  in  defending  themselves  against 
adversaries,  and  in  establishing  and  organising  churches,  there 
can  be  no  reason  to  doubt,  and  there  is  the  strongest  reason  on 
this  ground  alone  to  believe,  that  they  had  the  same  guidance  and 
direction  in  their  writings  ;  and  that  as  God  was  the  author  of  the 
revelation  which  they  communicated,  so  he  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  author  and  source  of  those  writings  which  were  directed  to  no 
other  object  than  just  to  unfold  that  revelation,  and  to  afford 
instructions  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  applied 
and  brought  into  operation  in  order  that  it  may  produce  its 
intended  effects.  This  point  might  be  illustrated  at  length,  but 
it  is  unnecessary.  The  argument  is  clear  and  satisfactory.  What 
such  men  as  the  apostles  were — men  who  were  endowed  with  the 
power  of  working  miracles  and  of  predicting  future  events — men 
who  were  commissioned  by  God  to  make  known  his  will,  and  who 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


277 


in  all  their  official  labours  were  under  the  immediate  guidance 
and  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost — wrote,  and  wrote  in  such  circum¬ 
stances  and  for  such  purposes,  must  have  been  written  under  the 
guidance  and  direction  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  and  is  therefore 
stamped  throughout  with  divine  authority ;  and  accordingly  almost 
all  who  have  professed  to  believe  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  reli¬ 
gion  have  admitted  the  divine  authority  of  the  books  which  compose 
the  New  Testament,  though  differing  in  some  questions  concerning 
the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration ;  except  Socinians  and  German 
rationalists,  who  have  manifestly  been  influenced  by  a  desire  and 
determination  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of  their  own  reason,  to 
emancipate  themselves  from  the  control  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
and  to  retain  the  liberty  of  judging  according  to  their  own  discre¬ 
tion  as  to  what  in  the  Bible  comes  from  God,  and  was  intended  to 
be  of  permanent  use  and  obligation,  and  what,  though  found  in 
the  Scriptures,  is  possessed  of  no  such  binding  authority.  This  is 
the  principal  argument  under  the  head  of  external  evidence  for 
the  divine  authority  of  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ;  and  it  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  establish  it. 

The  external  evidence  however  comprehends  every  argument 
derived,  not  only  from  what  we  know  concerning  the  authors  of 
these  books,  but  also  concerning  the  circumstances  and  the  objects 
of  their  composition  ;  and  any  information  we  may  possess  con¬ 
cerning  these  points,  although  derived  from  the  statements  of  the 
books  themselves,  comes  properly  under  the  head  of  external 
evidence,  because  it  applies  to  the  historical  matter  of  fact,  as  to 
the  source  from  which  these  books  really  proceeded,  and  forms  no 
part  of  the  indications  of  a  divine  origin  which  the  books  them¬ 
selves  as  such  contain.  We  have  not  a  great  deal  of  direct  and 
explicit  information  concerning  these  points  in  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  itself;  still  there  are  statements  which  afford 
decided  confirmations  of  the  evidence  of  its  divine  origin  and 
authority.  The  statement,  for  instance,  with  which  Luke  com¬ 
mences  his  Gospel,  viz.,  “  It  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had 
perfect  understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first,  to  write 
unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest 
knowthe  certainty  of  thosethings,  wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed,” 
seems  fairly  to  imply  that  whatever  authority  might  attach  to  any 
information  which  Luke  in  his  Gospel  has  communicated  to  us. 


278 


TWENTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


attaches  equally  to  the  whole  of  it,  i.e.  to  the  writing  or  book  as 
such.  John  tells  us  (xx.  31)  that  his  Gospel  was  written  “  that 
men  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and 
that  believing  they  might  have  life  through  his  name,”  a  state¬ 
ment  which  thoroughly  identifies  the  object  of  his  writing,  and  of 
course  of  the  whole  of  what  is  contained  in  his  Gospel,  with  that 
of  his  preaching  ;  and  thus  affords  at  least  the  strongest  presump¬ 
tion  that  in  writing  his  Gospel  he  had  the  same  divine  guidance 
and  direction  as  in  executing  his  apostolic  commission  of  proclaim¬ 
ing  orally  God’s  will  to  men.  We  find  the  apostles,  in  their 
epistles  to  the  churches,  claiming  for  their  writings  the  same 
divine  origin,  the  same  supernatural  and  infallible  authority,  as 
they  claimed  for  their  oral  instructions,  though  this  is  not  fre¬ 
quently  and  formally  insisted  upon,  because  the  truth  of  it  was 
really  too  evident  to  require  proof.  It  was  enough  that  these 
writings  came  from  the  inspired  apostles  who  were  commissioned 
by  God  to  make  known  his  will,  and  who  had  fully  established  by 
miracles,  which  Paul  calls  the  signs  of  an  apostle,  their  divine 
commission.  Paul  may  be  regarded  as  plainly  enough  claiming 
for  his  epistles  a  divine  origin  and  infallible  authority,  when  he 
commenced  them,  as  he  usually  did,  by  assuming  the  designation 
of  an  apostle,  and  referring  to  his  warrant  and  authority  for  assum¬ 
ing  that  designation,  and  executing  the  functions  of  that  office, 
^^Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle,  separated 
unto  the  gospel  of  God”  (Rom.  i.  1).  His  apostolic  authority  being 
thus  set  forth  in  the  commencement  of  his  epistles  as  the  ground 
or  basis  of  the  divine  authority  of  what  he  was  about  to  write,  we 
have  just  the  same  reason  for  receiving  as  coming  from  God,  and 
as  stamped  with  his  authority  whatever  we  find  in  these  epistles, 
as  his  hearers  had  for  receiving  as  divinely  inspired,  in  virtue  of 
Christ’s  promises  and  the  Spirit’s  communications,  whatever  he 
delivered  to  them  in  his  oral  instructions.  His  authority  and 
commission  being  thus  set  forth  in  the  commencement  of  his 
epistles  to  the  churches  as  the  basis  of  their  obligation  to  receive 
them  as  coming  from  God,  it  was  not  necessary  thereafter  in  the 
course  of  the  epistles  to  insist  upon  this,  to  say  anything  more 
about  the  true  source  from  which  they  proceeded,  or  the  authority 
with  which  they  were  invested.  The  allusions  therefore  to  this 
matter  are  only  incidental,  but  quite  sufficient  to  afford  decided 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


279 


proofs  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  apostolic  writings.  We  may 
refer  to  some  of  these  :  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet, 
or  spiritual  {i.e.  if  any  man  lay  claim  to  peculiar  spiritual  gifts,  or 
to  supernatural  divine  communications),  let  him  acknowledge  that 
the  things  that  I  ivrite  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord  ”  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37,  38) ;  Let  such  an  one  think  that  such  as 
we  are  in  word  by  letters,  such  also  are  we  indeed  when  vre  are 
present,”  (2  Cor.  x.  11),  where  he  manifestly  claims  the  same 
authority  and  reverence  for  his  letters  as  for  his  oral  instructions. 
And  again  :  “  If  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note 
that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him  ”  (2  Thess.  iii.  14). 

We  have  not  in  the  New  Testament  any  direct  and  formal 
declaration  as  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  as  a  whole  ;  and  this  was  not  to  be  expected 
in  the  circumstances,  when  the  different  books  of  which  it  is  com¬ 
posed  had  not  been  collected  into  a  volume.  But  we  have,  both 
from  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  the  fullest  and  most  explicit  attes¬ 
tations  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
then  and  always  received  by  the  Jews.  We  have  this  attestation 
embodied  both  in  general  declarations  and  in  many  specific  state¬ 
ments,  conclusively  establishing,  by  whatever  authority  attaches  to 
any  declaration  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  not  only  that  Moses  was 
a  divine  messenger  employed  by  God  to  reveal  his  will,  and  that 
the  prophets  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
also  moreover  that  the  books  which  compose  the  Old  Testament 
were  to  be  traced  to  God  as  their  author,  and  were  stamped 
throughout  with  his  divine  and  infallible  authority.  Some  of  these 
attestations  given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  the  Old  Testament 
it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  examine  more  carefully ;  but  as  we 
are  persuaded  that  they  establish,  not  only  the  divine  commission 
of  M  OSes  and  the  prophets,  not  only  the  divine  authority  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a  general  sense,  which  is  the  point 
we  are  at  present  considering,  but  also  their  plenary  and  verbal 
inspiration,  we  shall  defer  the  consideration  of  them  till  we  come 
to  the  investigation  of  that  question.  Before  leaving  this  subject 
of  the  information  to  be  gathered  from  the  New  Testament  con¬ 
cerning  the  divine  origin  of  the  books  which  compose  it  as  a  matter 
of  historical  fact,  it  is  proper  to  advert  to  the  attestation  given  by 
the  Apostle  Peter  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  epistles 


280 


TWENTY  FIRST  LECTURE. 


of  Paul,  and  we  introduce  it  here,  after  rather  than  before  the 
reference  to  the  attestation  given  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  to 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  because 
part  of  the  force  of  Peter’s  attestation  to  the  authority  of  Paul’s 
epistles  lies  in  his  putting  them  on  the  same  level  in  point  of 
authority  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  found 
in  2  Pet.  hi.  15,  16  :  ‘"Even  as  our  beloved  brother  Paul,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  wisdom  given  unto  him,  hath  written  unto  you ; 
as  also  in  all  his  epistles,  speaking  in  them  of  these  things,  in 
which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  which  they  that  are 
unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other  scriptures, 
unto  their  own  destruction.” 

We  have  said  that  the  external  evidence  for  the  divine  authority 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  based  upon  the  information 
we  possess  concerning  the  authors  of  these  books,  and  the  circum¬ 
stances  connected  with  their  origin  and  composition  considered  as 
matters  of  historical  fact,  whether  derived  from  the  books  them¬ 
selves,  or  from  any  other  authentic  source ;  and  we  have  informa¬ 
tion  of  an  authentic  kind  from  other  sources  which  goes  to  confirm 
our  conviction  of  their  origin  and  authority. 

We  have  several  statements  contained  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  the  truth  of  which  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  which 
may  be  reckoned  as  equally  credible  with  any  other  historical  testi¬ 
mony  to  a  matter  of  fact,  and  which  go  to  prove  that  the  apostles 
regarded,  and  that  their  followers  received  their  writings  as  invested 
with  the  same  divine  and  infallible  authority  as  their  oral  instruc¬ 
tions.  Irenaeus  (book  iii.  chap,  i.)  tells  us  that  what  the  apostles 
first  preached,  they  afterwards  wrote  in  the  Scriptures.  Eusebius 
tells  us  (lib.  iii.  chap,  xxiv.)  that  Matthew  having  first  preached  to 
the  Hebrews,  i.e.  the  Jews,  and  being  about  to  go  to  other  nations, 
wrote  his  Gospel,  supplying  by  writing  the  want  of  his  presence 
and  oral  instructions.  Eusebius  further  informs  us  that  the  Apostle 
John  examined  and  sanctioned  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  and  wrote  his  own  chiefly  to  supply  some  important  addi¬ 
tional  materials  which  they  had  not  been  led  to  record.  And 
indeed  we  have  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  primitive  church, 
from  the  apostles  downwards,  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  If  you  have  examined  with  care  and  atten¬ 
tion,  as  you  ought  to  have  done,  the  testimonies  of  the  early  Chris- 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


281 


tian  writers,  by  which  we  commonly  establish  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  you  must  have 
seen  that  many  of  them  declare  the  conviction  of  their  authors  that 
thos^  books  came  from  God,  and  were  given  by  divine  inspiration. 
And  this  may  be  regarded,  not  merely  as  the  statement  of  an 
opinion  which  the  primitive  church  entertained  upon  grounds  of 
the  validity  of  which  she  was  satisfied,  but  as  practically  and  sub¬ 
stantially  an  attestation  to  a  matter  of  fact,  namely  this,  that  the 
apostles  who  were  the  authors  of  those  books,  gave  them  forth  to 
the  churches  and  to  their  followers  as  having  been  composed  in  the 
execution  of  their  apostolic  commission,  under  the  guidance  and 
direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  as  therefore  possessed  of  divine 
and  infallible  authority.  And  this  consideration  is  sufficient,  were 
there  no  other,  to  warrant  the  declaration  contained  in  the  first 
chapter  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  viz.,  “We  may  be  moved  and 
induced  by  the  testimony  of  the  church  to  an  high  and  reverend^ 
esteem  of  the  Holy  Scripture,”  inasmuch  as  in  various  ways  the 
testimony  of  the  church,  or  the  reception  these  books  have  met 
with  ever  since  they  were  first  promulgated,  does  tend  greatly,  upon 
the  most  rational  grounds,  and  without  giving  to  the  church’s  tes¬ 
timony  more  weight  than  that  to  which  upon  scriptural  and  Pro¬ 
testant  principles  it  is  reasonably  entitled,  to  confirm  our  conviction 
that  these  books  were  given  by  inspirition  of  God,  and  are  able  to 
make  us  wise  unto  salvation. 

^  That  is,  “reverent.” — Ed. 


LECTURE  XXIL 


INTEENAL  EVIDENCE,  IN  COMMENTAEY  UPON 
CONFESSION,  CHAP.  I.  SEC.  5. 


w 


E  have  given  a  brief  sketch  of  the  external  evidence  of  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  which  compose  the 
Bible,  as  distinguished,  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  divine  origin  of 
the  substance  and  leading  features  of  the  revelation  which  they 
contain  and  convey  ;  and,  on  the  other,  from  the  question  of  the 
way  and  manner  in  which  divine  agency  was  exerted  in  producing 
them,  or  the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration.  We  shewed  you 
that,  from  what  we  know  as  matter  of  undoubted  historical  fact 
concerning  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
of  the  circumstances  in  which,  and  the  objects  for  which,  they 
were  composed,  the  conclusion  is  certain  and  irresistible,  that  the 
apostles,  in  their  writings  as  well  as  in  their  oral  instructions, 
were  guided  and  directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  therefore 
their  writings  are  the  word  of  God,  possessed  of  divine  and  infal¬ 
lible  authority ;  while  the  attestation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
viewing  them  as  divinely  accredited  messengers,  establishes 
beyond  doubt  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  which 
compose  the  Old  Testament.  The  internal  evidence  for  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture  is  that  which 
is  derived  from  an  examination  of  the  character  and  contents  of 
the  books  themselves  ;  and  in  explaining  briefly  the  general  nature 
and  bearing  of  the  arguments  classed  under  this  head,  and  derived 
from  this  source,  we  cannot  do  better  than  follow  the  guidance  of 
that  section  in  the  first  chapter  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  to 
which  in  last  lecture  we  had  occasion  to  refer.  It  stands  thus : — 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


283 


maybe  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  an 
high  and  reverend  esteem  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of 
the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent 
of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God),  the 
full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation,  the  many  other 
incomparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God”  (Sec.  5). 

The  first  thing  mentioned  here,  viz.,  ‘‘  the  testimony  of  the  church/' 
belongs  to  the  head  of  the  external  evidence,  and  as  such  was 
adverted  to  in  last  lecture.  The  rest  belong  chiefly  to  the  internal, 
though  some  of  them  might  also,  with  equal  propriety,  be  classed 
under  the  head  of  the  experimental  evidence.  We  shall  briefly 
explain  each  of  them  singly,  and  then  advert  to  the  general  con¬ 
clusion  that  all  these  things  are  arguments  whereby  the  Scripture 
doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God.” 

The  first  is,  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter.”  The  matter  of 
the  Scriptures,  or  the  various  subjects  there  treated  of,  have  all  a 
reference,  more  or  less  direct,  to  things  celestial  and  divine.  They 
are  connected  throughout  with  God,  the  unseen  world,  and  the 
eternal  destinies  of  man.  No  merely  human  or  temporal  object 
seems  to  be  aimed  at  or  attended  to.  Everything  is  connected, 
more  or  less  directly  and  palpably,  with  Him  whose  throne  is  in 
the  heavens  ;  with  the  celestial  origin  and  dignity  of  his  intelli¬ 
gent  creatures ;  with  their  relations  to  heaven  ;  and  with  the  end 
and  the  means  of  restoring  to  heaven  those  who  had  forfeited 
their  birthright.  Everything  connected  with  this  world  is  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  aspect  in  which  it  is  seen  from  heaven,  and  in  the 
light  of  a  higher  world.  There  is  nothing  that  is  of  the  earth 
earthy.  All  breathes  of  heaven,  and  tends  to  lead  the  thoughts 
and  desires  to  things  unseen  and  eternal.  The  guilt  and  depravity 
of  men  are  indeed  set  forth  in  glowing  colours,  and  exhibited  in 
fearful  specimens  of  what  man  is  and  has  done.  But  it  is  held 
forth  as  rebellion  against  the  dod  of  heaven.  It  is  represented  in 
the  light  in  which  it  usually  appears,  not  so  much  to  men  them¬ 
selves  as  to  the  purer  inhabitants  of  a  higher  and  a  holier  region ; 
and  it  is  unfolded  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  men  what  they  have 
lost,  and  what  difficulties  stand  in  the  way  of  their  restoration  to 
heaven  and  happiness,  and  in  order  to  lead  them  to  turn  their 
thoughts  to  that  state  where  there  is  no  more  sin  and  no  more 


284 


TWENTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


sorrow.  The  Bible  indeed  shews  that  God  has  been  pleased  to 
make  revelations  of  his  will,  conveying  regulations  about  temporal 
and  earthly  things,  especially  in  connection  with  that  remarkable 
people  whom  he  selected  to  put  his  name  in  them.  And  many 
of  these  regulations,  though  in  some  respects  intended  to  serve 
temporary  purposes,  and  not  now  fitted  to  effect  all  the  same  ends 
as  they  once  did  for  a  season,  are  recorded  in  the  same  Scriptures, 
and  form  a  part  of  the  word  of  God.  But  even  these  things  were 
all  written  for  our  instruction,  on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world 
have  come;  they  were  all  fitted  and  intended  to  have  some 
reference  to  the  heavenly  as  well  as  the  earthly  Canaan  ;  and 
they  are  still  found,  under  the  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit,  to  minister 
instruction  that  is  profitable  for  guiding  and  directing  men  in 
their  journey  to  the  Jerusalem  that  is  above.  Such  books,  con¬ 
taining  such  matter,  and  so  free  from  everything  that  indicates 
an  earthly  origin,  must  have  come  from  God. 

The  second  consideration  is  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine.” 
This  topic  may  be  regarded  as  belonging  partly  to  the  head  of 
the  experimental  evidence  ;  for  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine  comes 
out  most  fully  and  most  palpbably  when  exhibited  in  its  actual 
effects  upon  men  individually  and  collectively,  upon  their  under¬ 
standings,  motives,  character,  and  conduct ;  and  can  be  fully 
understood  and  appreciated  only  by  those  who  have  experienced 
it.  Still  something  of  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrines  by  which  the 
Scriptures  are  pervaded,  or  of  their  fitness  to  effect  and  impress 
the  minds  and  characters  of  men  in  a  degree  immeasurably 
superior  to  any  other  doctrines  or  truths  that  ever  have  been  set 
before  them,  may  be  discerned  even  by  those  who  have  not  yet 
submitted  their  hearts  and  lives  to  its  influence,  so  as  to  afford 
even  to  them  some  rational  ground  for  the  conviction  that  it 
came  from  God,  and  that  the  books  which  it  pervades  must  be 
traced  to  his  agency.  The  whole  of  the  doctrines  by  which  the 
sacred  Scriptures  are  pervaded  concerning  God,  his  character, 
government,  and  ways ;  concerning  man,  his  condition,  danger, 
capacities,  duties,  and  prospects ;  concerning  the  way  of  salvation 
through  Christ  in  all  its  branches  and  arrangements ;  and  con¬ 
cerning  the  everlasting  destinies  of  the  human  race,  is  manifestly 
fitted,  in  its  own  nature,  when  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
actual  constitution  of  man,  to  exert  the  most  potent  influence 


THE  EFFICACY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 


285 


upon  the  character  and  conduct  of  men.  So  that  men  to  whom 
it  has  been  made  known,  but  whose  character  has  not  been 
changed  by  it,  and  who  are  not  under  its  influence  increasing  in 
righteousness  and  holiness,  may  be  fairly  said  to  have  never  yet 
believed  it.  We  know  indeed  that  men  will  never  experience  its 
efficacy  except  through  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but 
this  as  a  matter  of  fact  is  traceable  solely  to  the  ungodliness  and 
depravity  that  has  been  superinduced  upon  human  nature  by  the 
fall,  and  the  fact  does  not  affect  the  question  of  the  fitness  and 
tendency  of  the  doctrines  themselves  in  their  own  nature  to 
produce  the  most  powerful  and  the  most  salutary  effects  upon  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  men,  so  as  to  make  them  suitable  instruments 
of  a  divine  agency,  and  to  afford  plain  indications  that  they  came 
from  Him  who  knows  the  heart  of  man,  and  turneth  it  whither¬ 
soever  he  will;  who  is  the  author  and  the  guardian  of  all  holiness 
throughout  the  universe.  This  is  the  light  in  which  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine  may  be  presented  to  men  who  have  not  themselves 
submitted  to  its  influence ;  but  when  we  further  attend  to  the 
voice  of  experience  as  exhibited  in  the  case  of  those  who  have 
been  born  again  of  this  word,  and  are  now  taking  it  as  a  light  to 
their  feet,  we  find  that  not  they  only,  but  any  to  whom  their 
experience  and  spiritual  history  may  be  made  known,  have  good 
ground  to  believe  that  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine  is  often 
manifested,  not  merely  in  the  great  leading  truths  which  compose 
the  Christian  system,  as  ascertained  from  various  portions  of  the 
Bible,  but  in  single  particular  statements  of  Scripture  brought 
home  with  power  to  the  understanding  and  the  heart,  and 
producing  deep  and  striking  impressions  of  divine  things,  calling 
forth  conviction  of  sin,  leading  men  to  turn  from  it  unto  God, 
filling  them  with  love  to  God  and  Christ,  animating  them  with 
zeal  and  ardour,  and  filling  them  with  strong  consolation  and 
good  hope  through  grace;  thus  plainly  pointing,  not  merely  to 
the  general  truths  or  doctrines  taught  in  the  Bible,  but  to  its 
precise  and  particular  statements,  as  having  come  from  God,  and 
as  still  employed  by  him  for  accomplishing  his  gracious  and  saving 
purposes. 

We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  next  particular  mentioned  as  an 
argument  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  viz.,  “  the 
majesty  of  the  style,”  as  it  could  be  illustrated  only  by  producing 


286 


TWENTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


examples  of  sublimity,  dignity,  beauty,  and  authority  in  extracts 
.  from  the  Bible,  which  you  can  easily  find  for  yourselves,  and  as, 
when  such  specimens  are  produced,  the  argument  founded  upon 
them  just  consists  of  an  appeal  to  the  ordinary  sentiments  and 
feelings  of  mankind,  and  to  the  impressions  which  they  receive. 
It  ought  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  there  are  some  general 
characters  or  qualities  attaching  more  or  less  to  the  whole  Bible 
which  may  be  comprehended  under  the  general  head  of  style, 
or  the  principles  which  have  regulated  or  determined  the  way 
and  manner  in  which  it  has  been  composed,  that  may  be 
fairly  regarded  as  affording  no  inconsiderable  evidence  that  it 
proceeded  from  one  source,  and  that  this  source  was  at  least 
superhuman. 

The  next  argument  is  “  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,”  and  this, 
when  rightly  estimated  and  fully  drawn  out,  affords  a  very  strong 
proof  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible, 
it  is  to  be  remembered,  consists  of  a  great  number  of  distinct  books, 
produced  by  a  great  variety  of  authors,  who  lived  in  different  ages, 
extending  over  a  period  of  about  1600  years,  i.e.  from  Moses  to 
John,  and  placed  in  a  very  great  variety  of  external  circumstances, 
but  all  of  them  treating  more  or  less  of  subjects  which  were  in 
some  respects  identical.  Yet  in  all  these  different  books,  and 
among  all  these  different  authors,  we  find  the  most  perfect  har¬ 
mony  in  all  the  views  they  entertained,  in  all  the  truths  they  pro¬ 
mulgated,  in  the  motives  by  which  they  were  animated,  in  the 
objects  they  aimed  at,  and  in  the  kind  of  means  they  employed  for 
attaining  their  ends.  And  we  find  pervading  the  whole  of  those 
books,  from  first  to  last,  not  merely  a  perfect  harmony  of  doctrine, 
sentiment,  and  object,  but  we  can  trace  plainly  one  great  scheme, 
one  grand  comprehensive  economy,  originating  in  one  cause, directed 
to  one  object,  partially  and  gradually  developed,  and  at  length  fully 
unfolded  and  consummated.  The  authors  of  the  different  books 
of  Scripture  take  naturally  and  obviously  the  position  and  aspect 
of  men  who  were  raised  up  and  guided  by  a  superior  power, 
employed  as  his  instruments  for  effecting  his  purposes,  accomplish¬ 
ing  for  the  time  just  the  object  which  he  had  in  view,  their  per¬ 
sonal  labours  and  their  written  productions  being  designed  by  him 
to  serve  purposes  of  which  they  themselves  were  not  fully  aware, 
but  which  we  now  see  to  have  been  closely  and  intimately  con- 


THE  CONSENT  OF  ALL  THE  PARTS, 


287 


nected  with  the  attainment  of  one  great  object,  with  the  com¬ 
pletion  of  one  great  and  glorious  scheme.  This  consent  of  all  the 
parts,  this  wonderful  harmony  that  pervades  the  whole  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  a  proof  that  one 
agency  was  concerned  in  the  production  of  them  all,  and  that  that 
was  the  agency  of  Him  who  seeth  the  end  in  the  beginning,  with 
whom  one  day  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one 
day.  The  unity,  the  harmony  which  we  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
to  pervade  the  whole  Bible  from  beginning  to  end,  could  not  have 
existed — must  be  regarded  as  an  impossibility — had  the  books 
which  compose  it  been  the  productions  of  unassisted  men,  had  not 
the  composition  of  them  been  superintended,  directed,  and  con¬ 
trolled  by  one  comprehensive  mind  ;  in  short,  had  not  God’s  agency 
been  so  interposed  in  the  production  and  composition  of  them  as 
to  make  them  really  the  word  of  God. 

Contradictions  and  inconsistencies  have  indeed  been  alleged  to 
exist  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  these  have  been  often  adduced 
and  urged,  not  only  by  infidels,  but  even  by  men  who,  while  pro¬ 
fessing  to  believe  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  have 
refused  to  admit  the  divine  origin  and  authoritv  of  the  books 
which  compose  the  Bible.  Most  of  these  alleged  contradictions  and 
inconsistencies  originate  in  ignorance,  carelessness,  and  prejudice 
on  the  part  of  those  who  adduce  them,  and  admit  of  being,  easily 
explained  or  reconciled.  If  there  are  any  that  do  not  very  readily 
admit  of  a  precise  and  specific  solution  individually,  there  are 
general  considerations,  applicable  more  or  less  to  all  ancient  books, 
which  afford  a  sufficient  answer  to  any  objections  that  might  be 
founded  on  circumstances  of  this  sort.  Besides,  the  alleged  incon¬ 
sistencies  and  contradictions,  especially  those  of  them  about  which 
there  is  any  real  difficulty  in  giving  a  specific  solution,  respect 
only  very  insignificant  matters,  such  as  names  and  numbers,  and 
therefore,  even  if  they  did  affect  the  question  of  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  a  point  to  be  afterwards  con¬ 
sidered,  cannot  affect  that  great  truth  which  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  unity  and  harmony  pervading  all  the  books  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  notwithstanding  their  having  been  composed  by  so  many 
different  men  in  different  ages  and  circumstances,  establishes,  viz., 
that  they  were  all  composed  under  the  superintendence  and  direc¬ 
tion  of  one  comprehensive  mind  ;  in  other  words,  that  God’s  agency 


288 


TWENTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


was  so  exerted  in  the  production  of  them,  that  they  are  all  his 
word,  possessed  of  divine  authority. 

The  next  topic  is  “  the  scope  of  the  whole,  which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God.”  The  great  truth  taught  in  Scripture  that  God  does 
everything  for  his  own  glory,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  own  per¬ 
fections,  can  be  easily  shewn  to  be  in  entire  conformity  with  the 
dictates  of  right  reason ;  and  indeed  when  men  have  been  led  to 
form  any  right  conceptions  of  the  being  whom  we  designate  as 
God,  a  being  infinitely  glorious  and  excellent,  independent,  self- 
existent,  self-sufficient,  the  creator,  proprietor,  and  governor  of  all 
things,  they  are  naturally  and  irresistibly  led  to  deduce  from  this 
idea  the  conclusion  that  such  a  being  could  not  be  moved  or 
induced  to  act  by  a  regard  to  anything  out  of  himself,  or  irrespec¬ 
tive  of  himself.  In  all  his  works  of  creation  and  providence  there 
is  a  supreme  regard  to  his  own  glory,  the  manifestation  of  his  own 
perfections.  If  the  Bible  be  his  word,  proceeding  from  him,  and 
stamped  with  his  authority,  we  might  expect  it  to  possess  the 
same  character,  and  to  be  directed  to  the  same  end.  And  so  it  is. 
“The  scope  of  the  whole  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God.”  The  whole 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is  manifestly  directed  to  the  object  of 
making  God  known  as  he  is ;  of  unfolding  his  character,  plans, 
and  government ;  of  leading  men  to  entertain  the  most  exalted 
conceptions  of  his  excellencies,  of  the  worship  and  homage  that 
are  due  to  him,  of  their  entire  dependence  on  him,  of  their  unworthi¬ 
ness  of  all  his  mercies,  and  of  their  obligations  to  shew  forth  his 
praise. 

These  are  objects  which  men,  such  as  they  have  usually  exhibited 
themselves  in  their  actions  and  in  their  writings,  would  not  have 
aimed  at  at  all,  or  in  any  eminent  degree,  and  which  even  the  best 
and  holiest  men  whom  the  world  has  seen,  made  so  by  the  power 
and  grace  of  God  himself,  would  not  have  prosecuted  so  singly,  so 
supremely,  and  so  unceasingly  as  we  find  is  done  by  the  authors  of 
the  books  of  Scripture,  unless  God  himself  had  animated  and 
directed  them.  To  give  all  glory  to  God  would  not  have  been  so 
thoroughly  and  so  exclusively  the  scope  of  the  Bible  unless  the 
Bible  had  been  God’s  own  work,  unless  its  various  parts  had  been 
produced  under  the  immediate  superintendence  and  direction  of 
Him  who  made  all  things  for  himself,  and  who  will  not  give  his 
glory  to  another. 


DISCOVERY  OF  THE  WAY  OF  SALVATION. 


289 


The  last  argument  under  this  head  for  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Bible  is  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only 
way  of  man's  salvation."  It  is  true,  not  only  that  the  Bible  makes 
a  full  discovery  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation,  and  that  no 
other  book,  except  among  those  which  are  professedly  taken  from 
the  Bible,  does  or  even  professes  to  do  so,  but  moreover  that  the 
great  object  of  the  whole  Bible  is  more  or  less  directly  to  open  up 
and  unfold  the  scheme  of  salvation,  and  that  every  part  of  the 
Bible  bears  more  or  less  upon  this  object,  and  is  fitted  to  contribute 
to  this  end.  This  scheme  could  not  have  been  invented  or  devised 
by  men.  We  can  see  in  it  plain  traces  of  the  wisdom  of  God,  of  its 
adaptation  to  man’s  condition,  constitution,  necessities,  and  aspira¬ 
tions  ;  and  when  we  find  that  the  Bible  is  devoted  to  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  it,  and  that  the  whole  of  it  bears  more  or  less  directly  upon 
the  great  object  of  unfolding  and  applying  it,  of  shewing  men  that 
they  need  it,  and  of  directing  them  as  to  the  way  in  which  they 
may  obtain  the  benefit  of  it,  we  have  the  strongest  ground  to 
believe  that  the  book  itself,  or  rather  the  collection  of  books  that 
form  the  sacred  Scriptures,  came  from  Him  who  alone  could 
devise,  execute,  and  reveal  such  a  scheme. 

The  Confession  adds,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies, 
and  the  entire  perfection  thereof.’’  These  things  have  been  illus¬ 
trated  by  many  writers,  and  will  be  seen  and  felt  by  all  who  set 
themselves  to  study  the  Scriptures  in  a  right  frame  of  spirit,  and 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  given  in  answer  to  prayer. 
And  the  excellencies  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  the  indications  of  its 
self-evidencing  power,  you  should  all  make  it  your  desire  and  your 
object,  while  you  study  the  Bible,  to  perceive  and  appreciate. 

These  are  the  chief  topics  which  may  be  said  to  constitute  the 
internal  evidence  for  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  or  to  afford  some  proof  of  the  general  position  that 
God’s  agency  was  exerted,  not  only  in  the  communication  of  the 
substance  of  the  revelation,  but  in  the  production  of  the  books. 
All  these  various  considerations  bear  upon  the  proof  of  the  general 
truth  of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  revelations.  Some  of  them  bear 
perliaps  more  precisely  and  directly  upon  that  question  than  upon 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  all  the  books  of  which  the  Bible 
is  composed  ;  and  some  of  them  do  not  admit  of  being  brought  out 

T 


290 


TWENTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


in  all  their  strength  for  the  conviction  of  infidels  and  gainsayers, 
but  can  be  fully  estimated  and  appreciated  only  by  those  whose 
eyes  have  been  opened  by  the  Spirit  to  see  the  wondrous  things 
contained  in  God’s  law,  who  have  received  the  truth  in  the  love  of 
it,  and  submitted  their  hearts  to  its  influence.  But  they  all  involve 
considerations  which  do  bear  more  or  less  clearly  and  directly  upon 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  as  distinguished  from 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  revela¬ 
tions  in  general.  And  they  all  admit  of  being  made  more  or  less 
intelligible  even  to  unbelievers,  and  may  be  presented  in  such 
aspects  as  should  in  right  reason  contribute,  upon  perfectly  rational 
grounds,  to  produce  the  conviction  and  the  admission  that  the 
books  which  compose  the  Bible  were  not  the  work  of  unassisted 
men,  and  that  the  agency  of  God  was  exerted  in  the  production  of 
them,  so  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  may  be  called  the  word  of  God, 
and  should  be  received  and  submitted  to  as  stamped  with  his 
authority.  They  are  all  found  in  the  Bible  itself ;  the}^  may  be 
seen  and  discerned  there  by  any  who  will  examine  it  aright,  with  a 
real  desire  to  know  whether  it  be  indeed  the  word  of  God ;  and 
hence  the  truth  and  justness  of  the  statement  in  the  Confession, 
that  all  these  things  “  are  arguments  whereby  the  Holy  Scripture 
doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God,”  qualities 
or  properties  found  in  it,  upon  due  examination,  which  afford 
reasonable  and  conclusive  grounds  for  the  conviction  that,  to  use 
the  well-known  and  often  quoted  words  of  Locke,  it  has  God  for 
its  author,  and  truth  without  any  mixture  of  error  for  its  matter, 
as  well  as  salvation  for  its  end.”  The  remaining  portion  of 
this  section  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, — which  is  in  these  words, 
and  contains  a  great  and  important  truth,  viz.,  yet  notwithstand- 
ings  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and 
divine  authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts,” — will  be  after¬ 
wards  explained  and  illustrated. 

It  cannot  be  said  with  truth  that  every  portion  of  the  Bible 
contains  equally  clear  and  palpable  internal  marks  of  its  divine 
original.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  some  portions  of  the  Bible 
contain  clearer  and  plainer  traces  of  God’s  presence  and  agency  in 
the  production  of  them  than  others,  the  word  of  God  being  analo¬ 
gous  in  this  respect  to  his  works  of  creation  and  providence. 


EXPERIMENTAL  EVIDENCE. 


291 


Neither  are  we  prepared  to  say  of  every  particular  book  in  the 
Bible,  taken  singly  and  separately,  that  it  contains  internal  proofs 
of  its  divine  origin  and  authority,  such  as  could  be  brought  out 
under  any  of  the  general  heads  to  which  we  have  now  adverted 
under  the  department  of  the  internal  evidence,  and  exhibited 
plainly  and  palpably  for  the  conviction  of  gainsay ers.  We  are 
disposed  to  concur  in  a  statement  made  by  Bichard  Baxter,  whose 
views  generally  upon  the  subject  of  the  evidences  we  formerly  had 
occasion  specially  to  commend  to  you,  and  which  is  quoted  with 
approbation  by  Dr  Chalmers  in  a  portion  of  our  text-book,  which 
we  will  by-and-by  have  occasion  to  consider : — 

“  For  my  part,  I  confess,  I  could  never  boast  of  any  such  testimony  or 
light  of  the  Spirit  (nor  reason  neither)  which,  without  human  testimony, 
would  have  made  me  believe  that  the  book  of  Canticles  is  canonical,  and 
written  by  Solomon,  and  the  book  of  Wisdom  apocryphal,  and  written 
by  Philo,  &c.  Nor  would  I  have  known  all,  or  any  historical  books, 
such  as  Joshua,  Judges,  Euth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
&c.,  to  be  written  by  divine  inspiration,  but  by  tradition,”  &c.  (vol.  ii. 
pp.  405,  406). 

But  whatever  may  be  the  extent  to  which,  from  internal  evidence 
alone,  we  can  establish  against  gainsay  ers  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  all  the  different  books  or  portions  of  Scripture,  certain 
it  is,  from  the  experience  of  all  in  every  age,  who  have  made  the 
attempt,  that  the  more  men  study  the  Bible  with  diligence  and 
humility,  and  with  prayer  for  the  divine  blessing  and  guidance, 
the  more  clearly  will  they  see  through  it  all  the  traces  of  God’s 
presence  and  agency,  the  more  fully  will  they  experience  its  self- 
evidencing  power,  and  the  more  thoroughly  will  they  be  persuaded 
by  what  they  see  and  feel,  as  we]l  as  by  submission  to  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  God  clearly  revealing  this  truth  by  his  apostle,  that  it  is 
all  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  and  instruction  in  righteousness.  Believers 
are  liable  to  be  assailed  by  temptations  to  error  as  well  as  to  sin, 
and  they  are  not  always  exempted  from  occasional  temptations 
even  to  the  fatal  error  of  infidelity.  And  they  are  commonly 
enabled  to  resist  these  temptations,  and  to  hold  fast  their  pro¬ 
fession,  through  the  Spirit,  opening  up  to  them  more  fully,  and 
impressing  upon  them  more  deeply,  what  they  may  have  pre¬ 
viously  seen  of  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible,  and  what 


292 


TWENTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


they  may  have  formerly  noticed  of  the  efficacy  of  its  doctrines  and 
statements  upon  themselves,  in  changing  their  natures, in  enlighten¬ 
ing  their  understandings,  in  sanctifying  their  hearts,  and  in  regu¬ 
lating  their  conduct.  Thus  they  are  persuaded  that  the  Bible 
could  not  possibly  have  been  a  cunningly  devised  fable,  that  it 
must  have  come  from  God,  and  that  it  is  only  by  cleaving  to  it  as 
a  light  unto  their  feet,  and  a  lamp  unto  their  path,  that  they  can 
be  guided  in  the  Avay  everlasting. 

We  must  remind  you,  however,  that  the  evidence  for  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  like  that  for  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  revelation  in  general,  is  cumulative  in  its  character, 
derived  from  a  variety  of  sources  wffiich  ought  all  to  be  carefully 
examined,  consisting  of  a  variety  of  branches  which  ought  to  be 
all  surveyed,  and  that  all  the  different  proofs,  external  and  internal, 
which  have  been  brought  forward  upon  this  subject,  and  which 
really  possess  any  argumentative  weight,  ought  to  be  viewed  in 
their  connection  with  each  other,  and  in  their  united  bearing  upon 
the  conclusion  to  be  established.  It  is  deserving  of  notice  that 
that  portion  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  which  might  probably  be 
regarded  as  having  less  self-evidencing  power,  less  internal  evi¬ 
dence  in  its  own  character  and  contents  of  its  divine  origin  and 
authority,  has  the  clearest  and  most  explicit  external  testimony. 
There  are  many  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  which  have  just  as 
clear  internal  evidence  of  their  divine  original  as  the  books  of  the 
New;  but  this  could  not  be  said  of  the  whole  of  it,  of  all  the  books 
of  which  it  is  composed.  But  then  we  have  the  clear  and  explicit 
testimony  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  assumed  of  course  to  have 
been  already  proved  to  be  divinely  commissioned  teachers  autho¬ 
rised  to  reveal  God’s  will,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  word  of 
God,  and  is  stamped  throughout  with  divine  authority.  And  this 
testimony  is  so  clear  and  explicit,  it  is  given  so  fully  and  unequivo¬ 
cally,  both  in  general  declarations  and  in  specific  statements,  which 
imply  or  assume  it,  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  evading  it  except 
by  adopting  the  principle  of  the  infidel  rationalists  of  Germany, 
that  on  this,  and  on  many  other  occasions,  Christ  and  his  apostles 
stated  or  admitted,  not  what  they  themselves  believed,  or  wished 
others  to  believe,  but  merely  what  w^as  in  accordance  with  and 
accommodated  to  the  superstitious  and  erroneous  notions  that 
then  generally  prevailed  among  the  Jews.  And  men  who  take 


NEOLOGIANS. 


293 


this  ground  are  of  course  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  infidels, 
with  whom,  when  we  are  called  upon  to  have  any  discussion  with 
them,  we  must  go  back  to  the  first  principles  of  the  whole  subject 
of  the  evidences,  and  whom  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  endeavour 
to  convince  by  appropriate  arguments  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
a  man  approved  of  God,  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs  which 
God  did  by  him ;  and  that  to  the  apostles  whom  he  sent  forth 
God  bore  witness  with  signs  and  wonders,  and  divers  miracles,  and 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  his  own  will  (Acts  ii.  22 ; 
Heb.  ii.  4). 


LECTURE  XXIII. 


DIFFEEENT  DOCTEINES  AS  TO  THE  DIVINE  OEIGIN  OF  THE 
SCEIPTUEES,  OE  THE  AMOUNT  OF  DIVINE  AGENCY  IN 
THE  PEODUCTION  OF  THEXI— PEINCIPAL  AUTHOES. 


IN  introduciDg  the  subject  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  we  explained  to  you  that  by  these 
words  we  meant  to  describe  in  general  the  truth  that  God's 
agency  was  exerted  in  the  production  of  the  books  which  compose 
the  Bible,  and  not  merely  in  communicating  the  substance  of  the 
revelations  which  are  there  contained  ;  reserving  the  more  detailed 
and  exact  investigation  of  the  question  as  to  the  way  and  manner 
in  which  God’s  agency  was  exerted  in  the  production  of  these 
books  to  be  prosecuted  under  the  head  of  the  nature  and  extent 
of  inspiration.  It  must  be  admitted  that,  as  thus  explained,  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible  is  some¬ 
what  vague  and  indefinite  in  its  import.  A  very  considerable 
number  of  writers,  who  differ  in  opinion  to  no  small  extent  from 
each  other,  must  be  all  in  this  sense  regarded  as  holding  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  We  do  not  well  see, 
however,  how  this  vagueness  and  generality  can  be  avoided. 
There  is  a  clear  line  of  distinction  between  those  who  merely 
admit  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Mosaic  and  Christian 
revelations,  and  those  who,  in  addition  to  this,  maintain  that  God 
was  concerned  in,  and  in  some  way  directed  and  superintended, 
the  production  of  the  books  which  compose  the  Bible.  And 
again,  there  is  a  clear  line  of  distinction  between  those  who  rest 
satisfied  with  the  general  doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  books,  though  differing  materially  among  them¬ 
selves  as  to  the  character  and  extent  of  God’s  agency  in  the 


DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 


295 


matter,  and  as  to  the  perfection  of  the  writings  which  resulted 
from  it,  and  those  who  hold  fully  and  precisely  the  great  truth 
of  the  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration  of  the  whole  Scriptures. 
These  are  the  only  very  clear  and  palpable  lines  of  division  upon 
this  subject  which  can  be  distinctly  laid  down  and  described.  But 
as  the  intermediate  class,  who  hold  in  a  general  sense  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  without  admitting  its  plenary 
verbal  inspiration,  is  composed  of  men  whose  views  differ  materially 
from  each  other,  it  may  be  proper,  before  proceeding  further,  to 
advert  somewhat  to  these  differences,  and  the  grounds  on  which 
they  rest.  The  view  commonly  held  by  Socinians  upon  this 
subject,  and  indeed  by  Latitudinarian  divines  in  general,  by 
those  who  have  been  characterised  by  their  lax  and  erroneous 
views  of  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  is  this,  that  though 
Moses  and  Christ  were  commissioned  by  God  to  make  known  his 
will  to  men,  and  though  we  have  in  the  Bible,  and  God  intended 
that  we  should  have,  sufficient  materials  for  ascertaining  the 
substance  of  the  information  which  he  communicated  to  men 
through  their  instrumentality,  yet  that  the  books  themselves, 
which  compose  the  Bible,  were  the  productions  of  men  who 
enjoyed  no  peculiar  divine  assistance  or  direction,  and  who, 
though  they  were  honest  and  faithful  narrators,  and  have  given 
us  accounts  which  may  in  the  main  be  received  as  true  and 
correct,  yet  were  liable  to  err,  and  did  err,  and  are  not  therefore 
to  be  implicitly  followed.  This  is  the  common  Socinian  or 
Unitarian  view ;  and  this  is  what  is  meant  when  it  is  said,  and 
said  truly,  that  Socinians  deny  altogether  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  Upon  this  theory  the  Scriptures  are  really  deprived 
of  the  character  commonly  ascribed  to  them,  not  only  of  being 
a  revelation  from  God,  but  even  of  being  fully  adapted  to  convey 
to  us  an  authentic  representation  of  the  revelations  he  has  given 
to  men.  We  have  strong  grounds  to  believe  that  if  God  was 
pleased  to  communicate  to  men  a  revelation  intended  for  the 
permanent  benefit  of  the  human  race,  he  would  make  provision 
for  securing  that  it  should  be  correctly  embodied  and  transmitted 
among  men ;  and  yet,  according  to  this  view,  which  denies  in  any 
sense  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  no  effectual  provision 
has  been  made  for  securing  this  end.  This  however,  so  far 
from  being  a  defect  in  the  estimation  of  Socinians,  is  just  what 


296 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE, 


recommends  the  notion  to  their  favour  and  adoption^  as  it  leaves 
them  at  liberty  to  exercise  their  own  reason  at  discretion  upon 
the  statements  of  Scripture,  and  practically  to  believe  as  much  or 
as  little  of  it  as  they  think  proper,  a  liberty  in  which  they  have 
always  shewn  that  they  are  very  ready  to  indulge.  This  view  is 
of  course  rejected  by  all  who  hold  in  any  sense  the  divine  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Bible.  They,  upon  the  grounds  of  which  a 
sketch  has  been  given  in  the  last  two  lectures,  maintain  that  God 
not  only  communicated  his  will  to  men,  but  made  effectual 
provision  for  securing  that  his  revelation  should  be  correctly 
embodied  in  the  Bible,  and  that  he  so  guided  and  superintended 
the  production  of  the  books  of  Scripture  as  that  they  are  His 
word,  stamped  with  his  authority. 

Under  this  general  position,  however,  there  is,  as  we  have  said, 
some  diversity  of  sentiment  even  among  those  who  stop  short  of 
the  truth  of  the  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration  of  the  whole 
Scriptures.  Some,  while  they  cannot  be  said  to  deny  inspiration 
altogether,  and  while  they  admit  that  God’s  immediate  agency 
was  concerned  in  the  production  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  seem 
anxious  to  have  as  little  of  inspiration  or  of  divine  agency  in  the 
matter  as  possible,  and  are  disposed  to  maintain  what  is  really 
little  better  than  the  Socinian  view,  viz.,  that  inspiration  or 
divine  agency  applies  only  to  those  parts  of  the  Bible  in  which 
something  is  communicated  that  could  not,  without  immediate 
revelation,  have  been  known  by  men  at  all,  or  which  contain 
predictions  of  future  events  ;  and  that  in  the  composition  of  the 
other  portions  of  Scripture  the  authors  were  left  to  the  exercise 
of  their  own  unaided  faculties,  and  the  use  and  improvement  ot 
their  ordinary  and  natural  sources  of  information  about  the 
subjects  of  which  they  wrote.  A  notion  of  this  sort  prevails 
extensively  among  those  German  writers  who  are  not  thorough 
neologians,  and  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to  deny  altogether  an 
immediate  supernatural  revelation  ;  and  some  such  notion  seems 
to  have  been  entertained  by  many  of  those  defenders  of  revelation 
in  our  own  country,  whose  defective  and  unsound  views  and 
principles  I  formerly  had  occasion  to  advert  to ;  while  an  impres¬ 
sion  of  a  similar  kind,  though  not  so  distinctly  stated  or  avowed, 
prevails,  we  fear,  to  some  extent  among  the  irreligious  portion  of 
professedly  Christian  society.  The  general  principle  upon  which 


DEGREES  OF  INSPIRATION. 


297 


the  advocates  of  this  view  proceed  is  this,  that  we  must  not 
admit  of  any  divine  agency,  of  any  immediate  and  supernatural 
interposition  of  God  in  effecting  or  producing  anything  which 
could  possibly  have  been  effected  without  it,  and  they  then  quietly 
set  up  human  reason,  i.  e.,  themselves,  or  their  own  notions,  as 
competent  and  adequate  judges  of  whether  or  not,  in  a  particular 
case,  any  immediate  divine  interposition  was  necessary.  With 
these  principles  they  come  to  examine  the  Bible,  take  the  different 
books  of  which  it  is  composed,  and  the  different  subjects  of  which 
it  treats,  and  set  themselves  to  consider  in  regard  to  each  book, 
and  each  subject,  or  class  of  subjects,  whether  mere  men,  unaided 
by  any  special  divine  assistance,  could  not  possibly  have  given  us 
such  information  as  is  there  presented  to  us  ;  and  whenever  there 
is  any  plausible  ground  for  the  allegation  that  men  might  possibly 
have  communicated  to  us  the  information  conveyed,  they  forth¬ 
with  conclude  that  no  divine  inspiration  was  granted,  that  no 
special  divine  agency  was  exerted  in  guiding  and  directing  them. 
On  these  grounds  some  defenders  of  revelation  have  denied 
anything  like  divine  inspiration  and  authority  to  the  historical 
books  of  Scripture,  because,  as  they  allege,  the  information  they 
contain  might  have  been  acquired  by  men  in  the  ordinary  use  of 
their  faculties,  and  in  the  unaided  improvement  of  the  opportu¬ 
nities  they  enjoyed,  and  might,  without  any  special  divine  assist¬ 
ance,  have  been  transmitted  to  us  with  all  necessary  accuracy. 
On  the  same  ground  they  are  disposed  to  exclude  from  any  valid 
claim  to  inspiration,  or  to  a  divine  origin  and  authority,  those 
portions  of  Scripture  which  contain  plain  precepts  of  morality,  or 
maxims  for  the  wise  and  prudent  regulation  of  conduct — as,  for 
example,  the  books  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes.  Some  writers 
of  this  class  are  even  disposed  to  exclude  also  the  devotional 
parts  of  Scripture,  as  containing  in  their  estimation  nothing  but 
what  pious  and  holy  men  might  have  spoken  and  written  under 
the  ordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit,  in  expressing  their  emotions 
and  desires,  and  describing  their  spiritual  experience.  The  whole 
of  this  genera]  reasoning  is  unsound,  and  the  application  made  of 
it  is  unwarranted  and  presumptuous.  We  are  not  warranted  in 
laying  down  the  position  that  God  never  interposes  extraordinarily, 
never  deviates  from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  never  gives 
special  and  supernatural  communications,  when,  so  far  as  we  can 


298 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE, 


see,  the  object  which  he  is  supposed  to  have  had  in  view,  might 
have  been  effected  without  any  such  interposition.  We  know  too 
little  of  the  general  principles  by  which  God’s  conduct  is  or  may 
be  regulated  to  warrant  us  in  laying  down  any  such  position.  We 
know  little  or  nothing,  except  in  so  far  as  God  may  be  pleased  to 
inform  us,  as  to  what  his  whole  object  was  in  any  particular  case, 
and  as  to  what  means  were  necessary  in  order  to  effect  that  object. 

It  is  conceded  by  those  with  whom  we  are  now  arguing  that 
God  intended  to  embody  in  writing,  and  to  convey  to  us  through 
means  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  an  authentic  and  well  accredited 
revelation  of  his  will ;  and  it  is  surely  very  evident  that  we  are 
not  warranted  in  asserting  that  he  woidd  have  accomplished  this 
object,  or  at  least  that  he  would  have  accomplished  it  so  thoroughly 
and  satisfactorily,  as  for  anything  we  know  he  might  have  desired 
and  intended  to  do,  by  superintending  and  directing  the  men  who 
were  employed  for  this  purpose  in  some  part  of  their  works,  and 
leaving  them  to  their  own  unaided  faculties  in  the  rest,  or  by 
putting  into  our  hands  a  book,  some  part  of  which  he  had  himself 
superintended  or  dictated,  and  other  parts  of  which  men  were  left 
to  compose  without  any  such  divine  assistance.  A  book  which  is 
partly  the  work  of  God  and  partly  the  work  of  unaided  man  is  at 
least  a  very  different  book  from  one  which  has  been  wholly  pre¬ 
pared  under  the  direction  of  God.  The  one,  it  is  manifest,  might 
be  fitted  to  serve  purposes  and  to  effect  results  to  which  the  other 
would  be  incompetent.  Would  not  every  man  who  was  at  all 
anxious  to  know  fully  and  certainly  God’s  will  conveyed  to  him 
by  writing,  earnestly  desire  to  have  it  in  a  book  which  was  really 
and  entirely  the  word  of  God,  in  place  of  being  left  to  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  of  picking  out  from  the  mass  of  the  contents  of  the  book, 
without  any  certain  test  or  criterion  to  guide  him,  what  was  God’s, 
and  therefore  to  be  implicitly  received,  and  what  was  man’s,  and 
might  therefore  be  disregarded  or  criticised  ?  And  if  the  one  of 
these  would  be  a  far  greater  boon  than  the  other,  and  manifestly 
much  better  fitted  to  serve  the  purpose  of  being  an  authentic  and 
satisfactory  conveyance  of  a  divine  revelation,  what  certain  ground 
can  we  have  a  priori  for  the  assertion  that  God  has  not  bestowed 
it  upon  us  ?  There  are  man}^  things  which,  though  not  coming 
under  the  head  of  matters  of  pure  revelation — i.e.  things  such 
that  men  could  have  known  nothing  about  them  unless  God  had 

O 


DEGREES  OF  INSPIRATION. 


299 


supernaturally  revealed  them,  and  predictions  of  future  events, 
which  it  much  concerns  us  to  know,  and  to  know  accurately,  and 
from  which,  in  point  of  fact,  believing  them  to  be  given  by  inspira¬ 
tion  of  God,  his  people  do  derive  important  spiritual  advantages, 
and  which  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Scripture  could  not  have 
correctly  recorded  and  transmitted  to  us  unless  under  the  guidance 
and  direction  of  God.  What  reliance,  for  instance,  could  be  placed 
upon  an  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  the  important 
transactions  connected  with  the  origin  of  our  race,  by  a  man  who 
lived  2500  years  after  they  had  taken  place,  unless  God  had 
directed  him  ?  How  would  men  unaided  have  produced  a  history 
of  God’s  mighty  deeds,  and  of  his  wonderful  works,  representing 
God  as  he  ought  to  be  represented,  and  as  he  might  wish  to  make 
himself  known  to  us  in  the  history  of  providence,  and  in  regard  even 
to  the  life,  actions,  and  especially  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour  ? 
How  could  even  his  apostles,  who  had  seen  and  heard  them,  have 
given  a  correct  and  authentic  account  of  them  such  as  we  could 
rely  on,  unless  they  had  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according 
to  their  Master’s  promise,  to  bring  things  to  their  remembrance, 
and  to  guide  them  into  all  truth?  Upon  such  grounds  as  these, 
which  might  be  easily  drawn  out  and  illustrated,  we  prove  that 
the  allegation  of  there  being  no  necessity  for  such  divine  guidance 
throughout  as  is  contended  for,  and  no  essential  benefit,  even  were 
we  warranted  to  make  our  own  views  upon  these  points  the  ground 
of  our  judgment,  as  we  are  not,  is  utterly  unfounded,  and  that  we 
can  discern  plain  traces  of  God’s  wisdom  and  goodness  in  guiding 
and  superintending,  even  in  matters  of  which  they  might  have 
had  some  knowledge  without  revelation  and  inspiration,  the 
authors  of  those  books  from  which  men  in  all  subsequent  ages 
were  to  derive  the  knowledge  of  himself,  and  of  the  way  of  salva¬ 
tion.  But  we  must  remind  you  that  these  considerations  afford 
only  an  answer  to  an  objection  of  opponents  based  upon  the 
alleged  non-necessity  of  any  further  interposition  of  divine  agency 
in  the  production  of  the  books  of  Scripture  than  what  they  admit, 
and  that  the  proper  direct  proof  of  the  interposition  of  divine 
agency  to  a  much  larger  extent  in  this  matter  is  to  be  found  in 
those  arguments  which  we  formerly  adverted  to  under  the  heads 
of  the  exterual  and  internal  evidences  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Bible.  These  arguments,  derived  from  the 


300 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


explicit  declarations  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  regarding  the 
Old  Testament,  from  the  commission  and  gifts  of  the  authors 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  circumstances  in 
which,  and  the  objects  for  which,  they  were  written,  and,  from  the 
evidences  of  God’s  presence  and  agency  which  pervade  the  Bible 
itself,  prove,  if  they  prove  anything,  that  God’s  agency  was  so 
exerted  in  the  production  of  the  Bible,  as  a  whole,  that  it  may  be 
fairly  and  truly  called  His  word,  as  coming  from  him,  and  stamped 
throughout  with  his  authority. 

Some  of  those  who  profess  to  hold  the  divine  origin  and  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  Bible  go  farther  than  those  we  have  just  described,  and 
say  that  everything  in  the  Bible  which  respects  matters  of  reli¬ 
gion  and  morality  is  to  be  regarded  as  coming  from  God,  written 
under  his  guidance  and  direction,  while  they  are  disposed  to  think 
that  in  other  matters,  not  affecting,  as  they  imagine,  religion  and 
morality,  the  writers  were  left  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  facul¬ 
ties,  without  any  special  or  supernatural  divine  assistance.  This 
mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  may  be  so  explained  as  to  be  prac¬ 
tically  as  loose  and  unsatisfactory  as  the  former,  although  it  must 
be  admitted  that  many  authors  who  have  adopted  this  mode  of 
stating  the  subject,  seem  to  have  intended  to  allow  a  larger  mea¬ 
sure  of  divine  agency  in  the  production  of  the  books  of  Scripture 
than  those  formerly  referred  to.  The  same  considerations  in  sub¬ 
stance  apply  to  this  view  of  the  subject  as  to  the  former.  This 
limitation  of  God’s  agency  in  the  production  of  the  books  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  has  no  firm  foundation  to  rest  upon.  It  is  but  an  unwar¬ 
ranted  and  arbitrary  supposition,  resting  only  upon  certain  ill- 
founded  and  presumptuous  notions  of  what  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  make  a  full  and  perfect  revelation  of  God’s  will,  of  what 
God  might  have  been  expected  to  communicate  to  men  super- 
naturally,  and  of  what  men  might  have  produced  without  any 
special  assistance  from  him.  It  assumes,  moreover,  that  there  are 
things  in  the  Bible  which  can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  have  come 
from  God,  as  being  unworthy  of  him  and  beneath  his  regard ;  and 
more  especially  as  having  no  connection  with  religion  and  morality, 
and  being  in  no  degree  fitted  to  promote  or  increase  our  know¬ 
ledge  of  God,  of  his  plans  and  his  providence,  of  the  way  of  sal¬ 
vation,  of  the  worship  and  homage  which  are  due  to  him,  and  of 
the  path  of  duty. 


DEGREES  OF  INSPIRATION. 


301 


Many  men  who  are  for  restricting  the  agency  of  God  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  the  Scriptures  to  what  they  call  matters  of  religion  and 
morality,  would  probably  shrink  from  laying  down  distinctly  the 
positions  which  have  now  been  stated.  But  it  is  quite  plain 
that  their  theory  implies  or  assumes  them,  and  therefore  they 
should  be  compelled  to  take  the  responsibility  of  openly  asserting 
and  maintaining  them.  And  in  discussing  these  positions  we  need 
not  be  afraid  to  meet  them,  for  we  can  easily  shew,  not  only  that 
no  proof  can  be  adduced  in  support  of  them,  though  that  is  enough, 
but  that  they  can  be  proved  to  be  unfounded  and  untrue,  incon¬ 
sistent  with  right  views  of  what  we  actually  find  in  the  Bible,  and 
with  what  we  learn  from  Scripture  itself  concerning  the  books 
both  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  If  we  were  to  indulge  in 
any  a  priori  reasonings  upon  such  a  subject,  though  this  is  a  very 
unsafe  and  uncertain  ground  to  occupy,  we  would  be  inclined  to 
say  that  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  would  lead  him  to  pro¬ 
vide  that  the  book,  in  the  production  of  which  he  was  immediately 
and  supernaturally  concerned,  and  which  was  designed  by  him  to  be 
the  permanent  and  the  only  channel  through  which  his  revelation 
of  himself  was  to  be  conveyed  to  the  human  race, — and  all  this  is 
admitted  by  those  with  whom  we  are  at  present  contending, — should 
be  all  produced  under  his  own  immediate  superintendence,  that  it 
should  contain  nothing  which  did  not  bear  more  or  less  directly 
upon  the  great  object  for  which  a  revelation  was  given,  i.e.  upon 
matters  of  religion  and  morality,  and  that  men  would  not  be  left 
to  decide  by  their  own  feeble  reason  as  to  what  things  in  the  book 
came  from  God,  and  were  therefore  to  be  applied  for  increasing 
their  knowledge  and  guiding  them  in  the  path  of  duty,  and  what 
came  from  men,  and  were  fitted  to  serve  no  such  end. 

There  is  still  a  third  and  higher  view  upon  this  subject,  held 
by  some  who  maintain  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Bible,  but  who  do  not  go  the  whole  length  of  holding  its  plenary 
and  verbal  inspiration.  Their  view  may  be  stated  in  this  way, 
that  God  superintended  and  directed  by  his  special  and  immediate 
agency  the  whole  of  what  we  find  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  to  its 
matter  or  substance,  but  not  as  to  the  words  in  which  it  is  set 
forth.  They  admit  indeed  that  there  are  some  portions  of  the 
Scriptures  where  the  words  as  well  as  the  matter  must  have  been 
communicated  by  divine  inspiration.  They  think,  however,  that 


302 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


tliis  was  not  always  necessary,  and  was  not  always  granted ;  but 
that  in  regard  to  many  things  contained  in  the  Scriptures  the 
authors  were  left  to  select  the  words  in  the  exercise  of  their  own 
natural  faculties.  They  have  devised  accordingly  a  variety  of 
modes  or  degrees  of  inspiration,  called  commonly  by  the  names  of 
the  inspiration  of  elevation,  the  inspiration  of  superintendence  or 
direction,  and  the  inspiration  of  suggestion ;  or  by  some  such 
names  of  similar  import.  They  think  that  one  kind  or  degree  of 
inspiration  might  be  necessary  for  the  production  of  one  part  of 
the  Bible,  that  a  higher  degree  might  be  necessary  for  producing 
another  portion  of  it,  while  a  lower  might  be  sufficient  for  a 
third;  and  they  are  very  careful  and  anxious  to  admit  no  higher 
kind  or  degree  of  inspiration  in  any  part  of  the  Bible  than  they 
are  pleased  in  their  wisdom  to  think  absolutely  necessary.  The 
distinction  between  an  inspiration  of  the  matter  and  an  inspiration 
of  the  words  has  no  foundation  in  any  of  the  statements  of 
Scripture.  The  different  kinds  and  degrees  of  inspiration  which 
have  been  laid  down  and  described  are  mere  devices  of  human 
wisdom,  to  which  God  has  given  no  countenance.  The  basis  and 
foundation  on  which  they  principally  rest  is  just  the  same  as  that 
of  the  other  defective  and  erroneous  views  upon  this  subject  to 
which  we  have  already  adverted,  viz,,  an  a  priori  resolution  to 
admit  no  more  of  divine  agency  in  the  matter  than  is  absolutely 
necessary,  combined  with  certain  unwarranted  notions  as  to  what 
kind  and  degree  of  divine  agency  or  of  inspiration  may  be 
necessary  for  producing  the  intended  result ;  although  at  the  same 
time  it  is  but  right  to  mention  that  they  usually  profess  and 
attempt  to  shew  that  a  distinction  between  the  inspiration  of  the 
matter  and  of  the  words,  and  the  supposition  of  different  kinds 
and  degrees  of  inspiration  are,  if  not  supported  by  the  explicit 
statements  of  Scripture,  yet  suggested  and  sanctioned  by  the 
actual  phenomena  which  the  Scripture  presents,  and  afford 
materials  for  solving  some  difficulties  connected  with  the  subject 
of  God’s  agency  and  man’s  agency  in  the  production  of  the  books 
of  Scripture,  which  they  think  cannot  otherwise  be  easily  disposed 
of.  We  have  now  conducted  you  to  the  borders  of  what  we 
believe  to  be  the  truth  upon  this  subject,  the  doctrine  of  the 
plenary  and  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  this,  upon 
grounds  formerly  explained,  we  mean  to  treat  distinctly  and 


DEGREES  OF  INSPIRATION. 


303 


separately  under  the  head  of  inspiration,  as  distinguished  from 
the  more  indefinite  and  general  subject  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Bible, 

The  observations  which  have  been  made  in  this  lecture  upon 
the  different  views  entertained  by  men  who  profess  to  believe  in 
some  sense  in  the  diviue  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
have  been  laid  before  you,  not  so  much  because  of  their  intrinsic 
importance,  and  not  with  the  view  of  fully  discussing  them,  but 
rather  for  the  purpose  (which  I  desire  habitually  to  aim  at)  of 
aiding  you  in  your  own  study  of  the  subject  by  the  perusal  of 
works  in  which  these  topics  are  handled  ;  and  you  may  perhaps 
find  them  useful  to  assist  you  in  understanding,  estimating,  and 
appreciating  the  works  you  may  have  occasion  to  peruse  upon 
this  subject.  We  formerly  had  occasion  to  warn  you  against  the 
loose  and  erroneous  views  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
which  are  to  be  found  in  many  able  and  standard  works  upon 
the  evidences,  and  the  same  warning  must  be  extended  to  many 
valuable  works  upon  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible, 
as  distinguished  from  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  and 
to  many  which  profess  to  discuss  the  subject  of  inspiration.  You 
will  find  that  not  a  few  works  which  profess  to  treat  of  the  subject 
of  inspiration,  and  to  maintain  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Bible,  support  one  or  other  of  the  different  modifications  of 
sentiment  which  have  been  explained  in  the  preceding  part  of 
this  lecture,  that  few  of  them  comparatively  maintain  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  while  many  of  them  argue 
against  it.  They  are  valuable  and  useful  in  their  own  place,  and 
for  their  own  proper  object,  just  as  those  works  are  which  establish 
the  external  miraculous  and  historical  evidence  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity.  But  they  are  not  in  general  satisfactory  discussions 
of  the  inspiration  of  Scripture,  though  they  sometimes  profess  to 
establish  its  inspiration  ;  and  it  is  right  therefore  that  you  should 
be  warned  against  their  defects  and  errors  upon  this  important 
subject.  You  will  find  in  many  of  them  good  and  important 
matter  in  proof  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  in  the  sense,  or  rather  in  some  one  or  other  of  the  senses,  in 
which  we  have  just  explained  this  subject,  and  that  you  may  use 
and  improve  for  its  proper  purpose  without  being  led  astray  by 
their  defective  and  erroneous  views  upon  the  subject  of  inspiration. 


304 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


With  these  observations  I  would  now  briefly  advert  to  some  of 
the  principal  works  which  have  been  written  upon  the  subject  of 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  which  embody 
some  discussion  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  God’s  agency  in  the 
production  of  it,  as  distinguished  from  the  general  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  In  the  year  1690  there  was  published  in  this  country  a 
work,  entitled  Five,  Letters  concerning  the  Inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  translated  out  of  the  French.  These  letters 
were  taken  from  two  works  published  anonymously,  but  written 
by  the  celebrated  Le  Clerc,  and  entitled  Sentiments  of  some 
Divines  of  Holland  on  Father  Simons  Critical  History  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  Defence  of  these  Sentiments.  Le  Clerc  was 
a  man  of  very  loose  latitudinarian  views  upon  all  theological  sub¬ 
jects,  and  by  the  boldness  and  presumption  of  his  speculations 
contributed,  along  with  Spinoza  and  the  English  deists,  to  lay  the 
foundations  of  German  neology.  These  letters  excited  a  good  deal 
of  notice,  and  occasioned  some  controversy.  The  views  which  they 
advocated  were  just  in  substance  those  which  we  have  described  in 
the  first  part  of  this  lecture,  as  differing  very  little  from  the 
Socinian  view  which  denies  inspiration  altogether.  The  letters 
are  characterised  by  considerable  ingenuity  ;  and,  in  order  to 
vindicate  himself  from  the  charge  of  being  an  infidel,  Le  Clerc  has 
introduced  what  must  be  admitted  to  be  a  good  statement  of  the 
substance  of  the  evidence  for  the  general  truth  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  as  distinguished  from  the  inspiration  and  divine  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  Bible.  The  chief  authors  whom  Le  Clerc  quotes  in 
support  of  his  views  are  Erasmus,  Grotius,  and  Episcopius  ;  and 
though  it  cannot  be  proved  that  they  went  so  far  as  he  did,  yet 
they  certainly  gave  too  much  countenance  to  his  theory.  A  reply 
to  Le  Clerc  was  published  by  Lowth,  the  author  of  a  well-known 
and  in  many  respects  valuable  commentary  upon  the  prophets, 
and  father  of  the  still  more  celebrated  Bishop  Lowth.  It  is  entitled 
A  Vindication  of  the  Divine  Authority  and  Inspiration  of  the 
Writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  and  while  it  contains 
some  good  and  useful  things  in  answer  to  the  lower  views  of  Le 
Clerc,  it  advocates  the  theory  that  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred 
writers  was  confined  to  matters  of  religion  and  morality,  and  that 
in  other  matters  they  were  left  to  themselves,  and  sometimes  fell 
into  mistakes.  Another  reply  was  made  to  Le  Clerc  by  Lamotte, 


LITERARY  HISTORY. 


305 


which  I  have  not  seen,  but  which  is  said  to  be  a  better  and 
abler  book  than  Lowth’s.  Several  other  works  were  published 
soon  after,  which,  though  not  intended  merely  as  answers  to  Le 
Clerc,  opposed  his  principles,  and  advocated  much  sounder  though 
still  somewhat  defective  views  of  the  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  principal  of  these  were  Bishop 
Williams^  Boyle  Lectures,  and  two  works  upon  the  subject  of 
inspiration  by  eminent  dissenting  ministers.  Dr  Edmund  Calamy 
and  Mr  Benjamin  Bennet.  These  are  all  valuable  works,  and 
contain  much  important  matter.  Their  authors  carry  their  views  of 
the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration  much  farther  than  Lowth,  and 
approach  much  nearer  the  truth.  None  of  them  formally  discusses 
the  question  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
rather  leave  it  out,  or  pass  it,  intimating  however  their  opinion 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  up  that  position,  while  yet  they 
sometimes  make  statements  so  full  and  sound  that  consistency 
would  seem  to  require  of  them  that  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
Scripture  should  be  admitted.  The  fullest  and  best  of  these  works 
is  Calamy’s,  entitled  The  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Writings  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  considered  and  improved,  published  in 
1716  ;  and  his  views  are,  upon  the  whole,  so  sound  that  there  is 
little  or  nothing  to  object  to,  except  that  he  has  not  asserted  and 
defended  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 

The  next  tw^o  works  of  any  considerable  importance  that  treat 
of  this  subject  are  to  be  found  in  well-known  commentaries  upon 
the  New  Testament,  viz.,  Whitby’s  general  Preface  to  his  Para¬ 
phrase  and  Commentary  upon  the  New  Testament,  and  Dodd¬ 
ridge’s  Dissertation  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament, 
subjoined  to  the  historical  books,  in  his  Family  Expositor.  Both 
of  these  works  contain  able  and  satisfactory  defences  of  the  divine 
authority,  and,  in  a  certain  sense,  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament ; 
but  they  both  deny,  and  argue  against,  its  plenary  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion,  and  they  both  vindicate  those  different  kinds  and  degrees  of 
inspiration  which  the  wisdom  of  man  has  invented  and  set  forth 
as  sufficient  for  the  production  of  some  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  as 
superseding  the  necessity  of  ascribing  it  all  to  God  and  the  agency 
of  his  Spirit. 

The  only  other  work  to  which  I  think  it  necessary  at  present  to 

u 


306 


TWENTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


refer  is  the  late  Dr  Dick’s  essay  on  The  Inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  It  is  a  highly  respectable  work,  and  contains  much 
sound  and  judicious  matter  ;  but  you  will  be  certainly  disappointed 
if  you  expect  to  find  in  it,  what  its  title  seems  to  promise,  a  discussion 
of  the  subject  of  inspiration.  It  is  substantially  a  book  upon  the 
evidences  of  Christianity,  including  in  a  general  sense  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Scriptures,  without  any  investigation  of  the  higher 
and  more  specific  questions  usually  comprehended  under  the  head 
of  inspiration.  The  arguments  for  the  general  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures  are  mixed  up 
together  in  a  way  that  is  somewhat  confused  and  perplexing  ;  and 
on  the  subject  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  it  gives 
a  somewhat  uncertain  sound,  though  the  author  seems,  upon  the 
whole,  to  be  rather  unfavourable  to  what  we  believe  to  be  the  true 
principle  upon  that  point. 

The  works  which  have  been  mentioned  treat  rather  of  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible  than  of  its  inspiration  in  its  stricter 
and  higher  sense.  Those  which  treat  more  fully  and  formally  of 
the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration  will  be  mentioned  when  we 
come  to  discuss  that  subject.  Before  proceeding  however  to  treat 
of  the  subject  of  inspiration  in  its  higher  and  more  restricted  sense, 
we  must  complete  the  subject  of  the  evidences  by  some  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  subject  of  the  agency  and  witness  of  the  Spirit  in 
convincing  men  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  in 
illustration  of  the  doctrine  which  we  quoted  in  last  lecture  from 
the  fifth  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in 
opposition  to  those  who  deny  that  any  divine  testimony  is  neces¬ 
sary,  and  to  the  Papists,  who  substitute  the  testimony  of  the  church 
for  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


LECTURE  XXIV. 


DIFFICULTIES  IN  GENERAL— EATIONAL  AND  SPIRITUAL 
EVIDENCE  —  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SPIRIT  —  ROMISH 
SCEPTICISM. 

rpHE  evidence,  external  and  internal,  by  which  we  prove  the 
truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Bible,  is  in  right  reason  quite  sufficient  to  establish  them. 
They  can  be  proved  conclusively  upon  grounds  and  principles  which 
assume  nothing  that  men  in  the  sound  exercise  of  their  faculties 
could  deny  or  disprove.  As  a  mere  question  of  argument  upon 
rational  principles,  the  proof  is  complete;  so  that  wherever  we 
meet  with  men  who  deny  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Bible,  whatever  may  be  their  character,  and  whatever 
grounds  they  may  take  up,  we  can  rationally  establish  them  upon 
evidence  which  they  cannot  answer,  and  to  which  in  right  reason 
they  ought  to  yield.  Objections  and  difficulties  indeed  of  various 
degrees  of  strength  or  plausibility  have  ])een  adduced  against  all 
the  different  departments  of  the  Christian  evidence,  but  most  of 
these  have  been  directly  and  conclusively  answered.  And  if 
there  are  any  which  do  not  admit  of  being  fully  and  directly 
answered,  they  are  such  as  respect  not  the  evidence  but  the  con¬ 
tents  of  revelation,  and  therefore  general  answers,  derived  from  the 
unanswerableness  of  the  proper  evidence,  from  the  exalted  char¬ 
acter  of  the  subject,  the  ignorance  of  mau,  and  the  weakness  of 
human  reason,  are,  upon  sound  and  generally  recognised  principles, 
sufficient  to  dispose  of  them.  They  are  mere  difficulties,  and  are 
neither  refutations  of  the  positive  proofs,  nor  proofs  of  a  nega¬ 
tive,  upon  the  great  general  question.  It  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  recognised  and  acted  upon  in  regard  to  every 


308 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


other  branch  of  knowledge,  that  mere  difficulties,  even  though  they 
were  much  more  numerous  and  formidable  than  any  which  attach 
to  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible,  should 
prevent  the  submission  of  the  understanding  to  proof  which  cannot 
be  overturned,  even  though  it  only  preponderated  over  what  could 
be  adduced  upon  the  other  side.  The  difficulties  which  attach  more 
or  less  to  all  truths  not  comprehended  within  the  limits  of  the 
exact  sciences,  and  which  ingenuity  may  invest  with  some  plausi¬ 
bility,  are  virtually  tests  of  men’s  character,  i.e.  of  their  honest 
love  of  truth,  of  their  being  more  ready  to  seek  truth  and  to  fol¬ 
low  rational  evidence  wherever  it  may  lead  them,  than  to  indulge 
any  selfish  feeling,  or  to  pursue  any  personal  objects  of  their  own. 
This  principle  applies  more  fully  to  the  investigation  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  and  the  Bible  than  to  any  other  subject  whatever, 
just  because  the  admission  or  denial  of  it  bears  much  more  directly 
and  extensively  upon  character  and  motive  than  any  other.  But 
the  principle  holds  more  or  less  in  the  investigation  of  all  moral 
questions.  The  difficulties  and  objections  that  may  be  adduced, 
although  of  no  real  or  rational  weight  in  opposition  to  the  proofs 
on  the  other  side,  alford  a  sort  of  plausible  excuse  for  men  taking 
either  side  they  like,  and  thus  contribute  to  make  their  decision 
the  result,  not  so  much  of  an  impartial  investigation  of  the  evi¬ 
dence,  as  of  some  other  collateral  motives  or  objects  that  may  have 
influenced  them.  This  is  virtually  the  principle  that  is  involved 
in  our  Saviour’s  remarkable  declaration  to  Thomas,  Thomas, 
because  thou  hast  seen  me  thou  hast  believed ;  blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed  ”  (John  xx.  29).  Thomas  had 
previously  sufficient  and  conclusive  evidence  that  Christ  had  risen 
from  the  dead,  in  the  testimony  of  his  fellow-apostles  assuring  him 
that  they  had  seen  the  Lord.”  On  this  ground  he  ought  to  have 
believed  it ;  and  it  was  neither  a  virtuous  nor  a  rational  state  of 
mind  which  led  him  to  declare  that  he  would  not  believe  unless 
he  were  permitted  to  put  his  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails, 
and  to  thrust  his  hand  into  Christ’s  side.  His  Master  was  pleased  to 
grant  him  the  evidence  he  demanded,  although  it  was  unnecessary 
in  sound  reason,  and  although  he  had  no  right  to  it.  But  he  at 
the  same  time  gently  reproached  Thomas  for  his  unreasonable  con¬ 
duct,  and  intimated  plainly  that  to  have  believed  in  the  reality  of 
his  resurrection  upon  evidence  inferior  to  that  which  he  had  just 


DIFFICULTIES  AND  OBJECTIONS. 


309 


enjoyed,  but  yet  quite  sufficient  in  itself,  would  have  indicated  at 
once  a  more  rational  use  of  his  faculties,  and  a  sounder  and  more 
creditable  state  of  heart.  There  is  nothing  in  our  Saviour's  declara¬ 
tion  which  encourages  or  demands  credulity  in  regard  to  his 
claims.  It  assumes  indeed  that  Thomas  had  had,  and  that  others 
would  have,  sufficient  evidence  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
•  without  having  the  evidence  of  their  senses  in  support  of  it ;  and  it 
implies  that  those  who  believed  in  such  circumstances  would  act  a 
more  rational  and  becoming  part  than  he,  whose  unwillingness  to 
believe,  in  whatever  precise  cause  it  may  have  originated,  had  been 
overcome  only  by  evidence  which  no  unwillingness  to  believe,  and 
no  strength  of  motive  drawing  him  in  an  opposite  direction  could, 
according  to  the  ordinary  principles  of  man’s  constitution,  have 
enabled  him  to  resist.  This  is  substantially  what  is  involved  in 
our  Saviour’s  declaration,  and  it  can  be  proved  to  be  entirely 
accordant  with  the  dictates  of  sound  philosophy,  and  the  voice  of 
universal  experience. 

We  do  not  require  indeed  to  have  recourse  to  any  such  general 
considerations  in  actually  dealing  with  unbelievers.  Our  business 
in  dealing  with  them  is  to  set  before  them  the  proof,  the  sufficient 
and  satisfactory  proof,  which  should  lead  those  who  have  not  seen 
to  believe  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  and  to  answer  their 
objections  against  its  sufficiency  and  conclusiveness.  But  it  is 
satisfactory  to  ourselves  to  be  able  to  explain,  in  accordance  with 
the  recognised  principles  of  human  nature  and  the  ordinary 
experience  of  mankind,  how  it  is  that,  without  being  able  to 
answer  our  arguments,  men  still  continue  to  reject  our  conclusions. 
Grotius  had  certainly  nothing  fanatical  about  him  ;  and  yet  he  has 
distinctly  laid  down  this  principle  of  the  actual  strength  of 
evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity,  viewed  as  a  mere  question 
of  argumentation,  and  of  the  plausibility  of  some  of  the  difficulties 
that  may  be  adduced  against  it,  operating  as  a  test  of  character  ; 
that  is,  as  putting  to  the  test  whether  or  not  men  are  really 
influenced  by  an  honest  desire  of  ascertaining  and  following  the 
truth.  In  the  conclusion  of  his  second  book,  De  Veritate,  in 
answer  to  the  allegation  that  Christianity,  if  true,  should  have 
been  more  conclusively  established  by  evidence,  he  makes  the  fol¬ 
lowing  statement  upon  this  subject  — 

“  Voluit  autem  Deus  id,  quod  credi  a  nobis  vellet,  non  ita  evidenter  patere, 


310 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


ut  quas  sensu  aut  demonstratione  percipiuntur  ;  sed  quantum  satis  esset  ad 
fidem  faciendam,  remque  persuadendam  homiui  non  pertinaci  ;  ut  ita  sermo 
Evangelii  tanquam  lapis  esset  Lydius,  ad  quern  ingenia  sanabilia  exploraren- 
tur.  Nam  cum  ea,  quse  diximus,  argumenta  tarn  multos  probos,  eosdemque 
sapientes  in  assensum  traxerint  ;  hoc  ipso  liquet,  apud  cseteros  incredulitatis 
causam  non  in  probationis  penuria  esse  positam,  sed  in  eo,  quod  nolint  verum 
videri  id,  quod  affectibus  suis  adversatur.” 

As  we  are  called  upon  to  be  ever  ready  to  give  a  reason  of  the 
hope  that  is  in  us,  it  is  our  duty  to  be  able  to  give  some  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  grounds  on  which  we  believe  in  the  truth  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible.  And  it  is  incumbent 
upon  us  to  be  able  to  establish  them,  both  for  the  conviction  of 
gainsayers  and  the  confirmation  of  believers.  All  argumentation 
must  be  deduced,  in  some  sense,  ex  concessis,  from  principles 
conceded  or  admitted  by  those  with  whom  we  argue,  however  far 
back  it  may  sometimes  be  necessary  to  go  in  order  to  find  them  ; 
and  when  we  are  seeking  to  explain  the  grounds  by  which  the 
truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  may  be 
established  for  the  satisfaction  of  our  own  minds,  the  confirmation 
of  our  own  faith,  or  for  the  confirmation  of  believers  who  may 
have  been  assaulted  with  temptations  to  infidelity,  there  are 
considerations  which  may  be  adduced,  and  which  may  possess  real 
argumentative  weight,  which  would  have  no  force  with  an  unbe¬ 
liever,  just  because  not  based  upon  principles  which  he  admitted, 
or  could  in  the  first  instance,  aud  without  some  intermediate 
stages  in  the  argument,  and  in  its  impression  upon  his  mind,  be 
required  in  strict  logic  to  admit.  These  branches  of  argument, 
however,  by  which  we  ourselves  might  be  satisfied  of  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  but  which  did  not  admit  of 
being  brought  to  bear  upon  unbelievers,  so  as  in  strict  logic  to 
compel  their  assent,  are  derived  exclusively  from  two  sources — 
first,  from  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible,  or  those  marks 
and  traces  of  divine  origin  and  authority  which  are  impressed 
upon  the  Bible  itself,  and  which  are  opened  up  to  the  mind  in  the 
course  of  a  devout  and  prayerful  study  of  it ;  and  second,  from 
those  effects  which  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  and  the  statements 
of  the  Bible  have  produced  upon  our  minds  and  hearts,  our 
character  and  conduct,  in  changing  our  natures,  and  in  leading  us 
to  live  to  God’s  glory  and  service.  Now,  these  things  apply  only  to 
those  who  have  not  merely  been  persuaded  that  the  Bible  is  the 


RATIONAL  AND  SPIRITUAL  EVIDENCES. 


311 


word  of  God,  but  who  have  come  into  contact  Avith  the  revelation 
itself,  and  submitted  their  understandings  and  hearts  to  its  influ¬ 
ence,  who  have  been  born  again  of  the  word  of  God  through  the 
belief  of  the  truth.  And  this  we  know,  in  point  of  fact,  is  never 
done  except  through  the  operation  and  under  the  influence  of 
God^s  Spirit.  And  hence  some  have  distinguished  these  two 
departments  of  evidence,  viz.,  that  by  which  unbelievers  may 
be  and  should  be  convinced,  and  that  by  which,  though  it  does  not 
admit  of  the  same  direct  bearing  upon  unbelievers,  may  be  applied 
in  confirming  our  own  faith,  by  the  names  of  the  rational  and  the 
spiritual  evidences.  The  nomenclature  is  not  very  correct,  and  it 
is  fitted  to  convey  erroneous  impressions,  and  this  in  two  ways : — 
1.  It  seems  to  imply  that  the  spiritual  evidence  is  not  rational  ; 
Avhereas,  though  seen  and  felt  only  by  those  who  have  been 
brought  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  under  the  influence  of  the 
regenerating  and  sanctifying  force  of  the  truth,  and  therefore  not 
admitting  of  being  brought  to  bear  fully  upon  those  who  have  not 
been  the  subjects  of  this  operation,  it  is  to  those  who  have  it  a 
perfectly  rational  ground  of  belief,  with  which  their  understandings 
may  be  and  should  be  fully  satisfied.  It  is  not  a  fanatical 
delusion,  a  vague  and  mystical  impression,  but  an  argument  which 
can  be  fully  vindicated  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  man’s 
constitution.  That  some  of  the  materials  upon  which  it  rests  are 
derived  from  our  own  individual  consciousness,  and  therefore  can¬ 
not  be  fully  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  others,  who  are  iiot 
bound  to  believe  our  testimony  upon  this  point,  does  not  affect 
its  proper  intrinsic  validity  to  those  who,  by  their  own  conscious¬ 
ness,  are  possessed  of  these  materials.  To  say  that  men’s  con¬ 
sciousness  of  what  they  have  been  enabled  mentally  to  discern  and 
experience  may  deceive  them  is  true,  but  not  to  the  purpose;  for 
this  is  nothing  more  than  may  be  said  of  all  the  poAvers  and 
capacities  by  Avhich  men  acquire  knowledge  and  form  judgments. 
All  men’s  faculties  may  sometimes  deceive  them  ;  but  this  is  never 
regarded — except  by  mere  sceptics,  who  are  beyond  the  reach  of 
argument — as  any  reason  for  denying  the  possibility  of  acquiring 
certain  knoAvledge,  or  for  calling  Aipon  men  to  place  no  reliance 
upon  the  ordinary  operations  of  their  faculties. 

2,  This  distinction  betAveen  the  rational  and  the  spiritual  evi¬ 
dences  may  seem  to  imply  a  notion  which  is  in  some  respects  the 


312 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE, 


reverse  of  that  which  we  have  just  exposed,  but  which  is  equally 
erroneous,  viz.,  that  the  Spirit  does  not  employ  what  is  compre¬ 
hended  under  the  head  of  the  rational  evidence  in  producing  faith 
in  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Whatever  is 
in  right  reason  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  whatever  upon  the  principles  of  sound  logic  possesses 
real  argumentative  weight  to  establish  the  conclusion,  may  be 
employed  by  the  Spirit  for  producing  that  faith  which  is  his  gift ; 
that  is,  may  be  employed  by  the  Spirit  for  deepening  and  con¬ 
firming  those  convictions  which  in  its  own  nature,  and  in  virtue 
of  its  argumentative  weight,  it  is  fitted  to  produce.  For  it  may 
be  laid  down  as  a  general  principle  that  there  is  no  truth  con¬ 
nected  with  religion  which  the  Holy  Spirit  may  not,  and  does  not, 
as  he  sees  meet,  impress  upon  men’s  minds ;  and  there  is  no  sound 
argument  that  really  goes  to  establish  or  confirm  the  truth,  which 
he  may  not  employ  for  producing  conviction.  What  then  has 
sometimes  been  called  the  spiritual  evidence  is  also  rational, 
though  it  may  not  be  directly  available  for  convincing  unbelievers ; 
and} what  has  been  called  rational  is  spiritual,  at  least  in  this 
sense,  that  it  may  be  and  has  been  employed  by  the  Spirit  for  pro¬ 
ducing  conviction. 

The  proper  deduction  to  be  noticed  and  preserved  upon  this 
sulfject  are  these  two — First,  that  the  one  department  of  evi¬ 
dence  is  fitted  to  convince  unbelievers,  resting  upon  principles 
which  they  cannot  dispute  without  overturning  the  certainty  of 
all  human  knowledge,  and  conducting  by  a  process  of  argument 
which  they  cannot  at  any  point  answ^er,  or  overturn,  or  evade,  to 
the  conclusion  that  Christ  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  and  that 
the  Scriptures  came  from  God ;  and  that  the  other  is  directly 
fitted  only  to  confirm  the  faith  of  those  whose  eyes  have  already 
been  opened  to  behold  the  wondrous  things  contained  in  God’s 
law,  and  who  have  been  born  again  of  the  word  of  God  through 
the  belief  of  the  truth.  The  second  distinction  is  this,  that  the 
evidence  of  the  one  class  may  be  understood  and  perceived,  and 
that  the  conclusion  to  which  it  leads  may  be  admitted,  without 
men  having  enjoyed  the  Spirit’s  teaching,  or  having  become  the 
subjects  of  his  operations;  while  the  materials  on  which  the  other 
is  based  partly  are  not  seen,  and  partly  do  not  exist,  until  the 
Spirit  of  God  has  been  sent  forth  into  men’s  hearts,  and  has  pro- 


ALL  TEE  EVIDENCE  RATIONAL. 


313 


duced  there  some  of  his  leading  peculiar  results.  Whatever  diffi¬ 
culty  there  may  be  in  explaining,  or  even  in  describing,  the 
character  and  conduct  of  men  who  profess  to  be  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Bible,  but  who  yet  have  never  examined  the  Christian  revelation 
with  attention  and  seriousness,  and  are  manifestly  not  affected  in 
their  character  and  conduct  by  the  contents  of  that  revelation,  we 
are  not  entitled  to  deny  that  such  men,  if  they  have  examined 
the  evidences,  if  they  profess  themselves  convinced  of  their  suffi¬ 
ciency,  and  are  able  and  willing  to  give  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  grounds  of  their  convictions,  and  to  defend  them  against 
the  objections  of  adversaries — are  in.  some  sense  honestly  per¬ 
suaded  of  the  truth  of  the  revelation,  though  it  may  be  abundantly 
evident  that  their  conduct  is  marked  by  great  inconsistency,  and 
that  they  have  never  enjoyed  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit.  They 
have  examined  the  question  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  just  as 
they  would  have  examined  a  question  in  any  other  department  of 
knowledge,  and  perhaps  just  in  some  measure  because  of  their 
entire  carelessness  and  indifference  about  the  contents  of  the 
revelation,  and  their  utter  want  of  any  sense  of  the  obligation 
which  an  admission  of  its  truth  imposes,  have  come  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  there  is  sufficient  ground  to  believe  in  its  divine 
original.  There  is  sufficient  evidence  to  convince  unbelievers  of 
this  as  a  mere  question  of  argument ;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 
men  in  the  fair  use  of  their  faculties,  without  any  special  divine 
assistance,  and  without  any  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit,  may 
come  to  this  conclusion,  and  assert  and  maintain  it.  They  have 
the  whole  of  the  external  evidence  to  deal  with.  It  is  perfectly 
comprehensible  by  them.  It  may  be  understood  by  them  in  all 
its  branches ;  and  its  force  and  conclusiveness,  as  a  mere  piece  of 
argumentation,  may  be  seen  and  apprehended.  A  portion  of  what 
is  usually  comprehended  under  the  head  of  the  internal  evidence 
is  also  fully  subject  to  their  cognizance,  and  may  be  apprehended 
and  appreciated  by  them ;  we  mean  everything  about  the  general 
character  and  the  particular  features  of  the  Christian  revelation 
and  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  goes  directly  to  establish  this 
proposition,  that  they  could  not  have  been  invented  and  devised 
by  men,  especially  by  men  so  circumstanced  as  those  from 
whom  the  Christian  revelation,  and  the  books  which  contain  it. 


314 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


proceeded.  This  is  a  proposition  which,  from  its  very  nature,  comes 
within  the  cognizance  of  man’s  ordinary  faculties  and  capacities  of 
judging ;  and  materials  sufficient  to  establish  it  may  be  pointed 
out  in  the  Christian  revelation,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
perception  and  appreciation  of  which  do  not  necessarily  require  or 
imply  that  thorough,  intimate,  efficacious  knowledge  of  divine 
truth  which  proceeds  only  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  If  we  take 
the  word  experimental  in  the  wide  sense  which  it  may  not  unwar¬ 
rantably  bear,  and  in  which  we  formerly  explained  it,  as  compre¬ 
hending  every  argument  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  derived 
from  the  reception  it  has  met  with,  and  the  effects  it  has  pro¬ 
duced  upon  men  collectively  and  individually,  then  there  is  some- 
thinof  too  under  this  head,  as  well  as  under  that  of  the  internal 
evidence,  which  mav  be  addressed  to  unbelievers,  which  can  be 
logically  commended  to  their  understandings,  and  which  may  and 
should  operate  rationally  in  leading  them  to  the  conviction  that 
Christianity  and  the  Bible  came  from  God,  without  any  special 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  without  requiring  the  admission 
or  application  of  any  of  those  materials  which  his  agency  alone 
can  provide ;  especially  the  arguments  derived  from  the  propaga¬ 
tion  of  Christianity,  and  the  general  effects  which  Christianity 
and  the  Bible  have  actually  produced  upon  the  state  of  the  world 
wherever  they  have  been  known  and  received.  Thus  the  whole 
of  the  external  and  a  portion  of  the  internal  and  experimental 
evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Bible  may  be  addressed  to  unbelievers ;  may  be  established  to 
their  satisfaction  as  a  mere  question  of  argument ;  may,  upon  the 
principles  of  sound  reasoning  and  strict  logic,  be  commended  to 
their  understandings,  and  may  produce  such  a  conviction  in  their 
minds  as  in  consistency  and  common  sense  should  lead  them  to  a 
diligent,  serious,  and  prayerful  study  of  the  Bible.  And  all  this 
class  of  arguments,  sometimes,  as  we  have  said,  called  the  rational 
evidence,  may  be  used  by  believers,  and  may  be  emplo3^ed  by  the 
Spirit,  for  confirming  them  in  their  most  holy  faith  ;  while  they 
enjoy  also,  for  their  confirmation  and  encouragement,  and  to  aid 
them  in  resisting  any  temptations  to  infidelity  with  which  they 
ma}^  be  assailed,  other  arguments  coming  under  the  head  of 
the  internal  and  experimental  evidence,  the  materials  of  which 
exist  partly  in  the  revelation  itself  and  the  sacred  books  which 


SELF-EVIDEKGING  POWER  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


315 


contain  it,  and  partly  in  their  own  hearts,  hut  for  which,  both  in 
their  existence  and  in  their  application  and  effect,  they  are  wholly 
indebted  to,  and  dependent  upon,  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  right  that  we  should  understand  and  appreciate  the  entire 
sufficiency  and  conclusiveness  of  the  evidence  by  which,  upon 
rational  principles,  requiring  no  spiritual  discernment,  no  super¬ 
natural  opening  of  the  eyes,  no  radical  change  of  men’s  moral 
principles,  no  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  we  can 
bring  home  to  unbelievers,  as  a  mere  question  of  argument,  the 
truth  of  the  proposition  that  Christianity  and  the  Bible  came 
from  God ;  by  which  we  can  logically  compel  them  to  admit  this, 
or  to  stand  self-condemned  by  their  manifest  refusal  to  give  their 
fair  rational  weight  to  arguments  which  they  cannot  answer,  and 
to  follow  out  principles  which  they  cannot  deny  without  over¬ 
turning  the  certainty  of  all  human  knowledge,  and  by  which,  in 
regard  to  other  departments  of  knowledge,  they  themselves  are 
guided.  It  is  thus  that  we  stop  the  mouths  of  gainsayers,  and 
establish  against  every  opponent,  and  upon  rational  principles,  the 
thoroughly  rational  character  of  our  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of 
Christianity  and  the  Bible,  and  can  bring  home  to  all  with  whom 
we  may  come  into  contact,  whatever  ground  they  may  choose  to 
assume  in  this  matter — unless  indeed  they  take  refuge  in  absolute 
scepticism,  and  deny  that  men  can  know  anything — an  obligation 
to  admit  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  and  a  consequent 
obligation  to  receive  and  submit  to  it  as  coming  from  God. 

The  other  departments  of  proof,  which  cannot  be  brought  to 
bear  directly  upon  unbelievers,  as  not  being  based  upon  principles 
which,  while  unbelievers,  and  as  such,  they  can  be  logically 
required  to  admit,  but  which  are  well  fitted  to  confirm  the  faith 
of  those  who  have  submitted  to  the  truth  and  have  been  brought 
under  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  are  the  self-evidencing  power  of 
the  Bible,  coming  under  the  head  of  the  internal  evidence,  and 
the  effects  which  Christianity  and  the  Bible  have  produced  upon 
their  own  heart  and  character,  coming  under  the  head  of  the 
experimental  evidence,  and  constituting  indeed  what  is  usually 
known  under  that  name.  Before  proceeding  to  advert  more 
particularly  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  this  matter,  it  is  proper 
to  mention  that,  though  arguments  of  this  sort  do  not  possess 
probative  power  to  unbelievers  who  openly  deny  the  divine  origin 


316 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


of  Christianity  and  the  Bible,  so  that  they  can  be  compelled,  as  a 
matter  of  argumentation,  to  admit  their  soundness,  and  to  submit 
to  their  force,  or  at  least  to  be  silent,  yet  it  is  most  commonly  by 
considerations  derived  from  these  sources  that  unbelievers  are  in 
fact  converted.  Few  men  who  have  been  led  openly  to  deny  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  and  to  contend  against  the  force  of  the 
arguments  by  which  it  is  usually  commended  to  the  under¬ 
standings  of  infidels,  have  been  persuaded  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible,  by  those  argu¬ 
ments  by  which  they  ought,  in  right  reason  and  in  sound  logic, 
to  have  been  convinced  of  this.  When  such  persons  have  been 
converted,  it  has  been  most  commonly  through  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  that  is,  the  exposition  of  the  substance  and  leading 
features  of  the  Christian  revelation,  or  the  reading  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  even  when  previously  they  did  not  believe  the  gospel  or 
the  Bible  to  have  come  from  God.  And  of  course  their  conver¬ 
sion  must  have  been  effected  by  the  Spirit’s  enabling  them  to  see 
something  of  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  gospel  and  the 
Bible,  and  satisfying  them  of  their  divine  origin  by  the  impres¬ 
sions  and  changes  which  he  himself  produced  by  their  instru¬ 
mentality  upon  their  hearts.  When  such  results  take  place,  then 
men  will  soon  indeed  see  the  futility  of  the  objections  which  they 
may  have  been  accustomed  to  adduce  against  the  arguments  with 
which  they  were  formerly  plied,  and  be  convinced  that  these  argu¬ 
ments  are,  upon  rational  grounds,  conclusive  and  unanswerable. 
But  they  will  soon  also  see  that  considerations,  which  at  one  time 
they  thought  unworthy  of  serious  examination,  and  fit  only  to  be 
treated  with  ridicule,  are  possessed  of  a  weight  and  influence  well 
fitted  to  secure  to  them  at  once  respect  and  success.  The  practical 
inference  to  be  deduced  from  this  fact — for  it  is  a  fact,  established 
by  abundant  experience — is,  that  even  in  dealing  with  open 
deniers  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible,  we  should 
not  omit,  as  means  that  may  be  useful,  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  and  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  if  they  can  be  prevailed 
upon  to  listen. 

In  that  part  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  which  I  formerly  explained  and  illustrated, 
several  considerations  on  which  I  briefly  commented  (and  which 
rank  partly  under  the  external,  though  chiefly  under  the  internal 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


317 


evidence),  are  declared  to  be  “  arguments  whereby  the  Holy 
Scripture  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God and  then  the  Confession  goes  on  to  say,  Yet  notwith¬ 
standing,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth 
and  divine  authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts.” 
The  particulars  specified  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  section,  and 
described  as  being  “  arguments  whereby  the  Holy  Scripture  doth 
abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God,”  are  all,  as  I 
formerly  explained  to  you,  such  as  may  be  in  some  measure 
understood  and  apprehended  even  by  men  who  have  not  been 
brought  under  the  power  of  the  truth  or  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit.  Even  to  these  then  there  are  considerations  to  be  found 
in  and  to  be  derived  from  the  Scripture  itself,  whereby  it  may 
be  abundantly  evidenced  to  be  the  word  of  God.  This  implies 
that  there  are  materials  for  bringing  home  to  them,  even  without 
the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  a  conviction  to  which  they  ought  to 
yield,  and  which  ought  to  produce  some  practical  results.  And 
the  substance  of  what  is  set  forth  in  the  clause  we  are  now 
considering  is  this,  that  there  is  a  firmer  conviction,  a  more 
thorough  persuasion  of  the  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures  than  any  which  mere  arguments  as  such  can  produce  ; 
that  this  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit ;  and  that 
the  Spirit  produces  it  in  men’s  hearts  through  the  instrumentality 
of  the  word  itself.  This  is  a  doctrine  which  can  be  learned  only 
from  the  Scriptures,  and  can  be  proved  only  by  arguments  taken 
from  that  source.  Its  truth  can  be  fully  established  from  the 
statements  of  the  Bible.  But  I  refer  to  it  at  present  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  you  a  brief  statement  of  some  discussions 
that  have  taken  place  with  respect  to  the  witness  or  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  in  connection  with  the  establishment  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  grounds  of  our  certain 
persuasion  or  assured  conviction  that  they  are  the  word  of  God. 
The  discussions  which  have  taken  place  upon  this  subject  are 
of  a  somewhat  intricate  and  subtle  description,  and  have  not 
always  been  conducted  with  sufficient  care  and  perspicuity,  even 
by  those  whose  views  were  in  the  main  correct.  This  subject 
entered  largely  into  the  discussions  which  took  place  between 
the  Protestants  and  the  Church  of  Home  at  the  era  of  the 


318 


TWENTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


Reformation  ;  and  in  some  of  its  aspects  it  has  been  discussed  also 
between  orthodox  and  evangelical  Protestants  and  some  of  the 
Latitudinarian,  or,  as  they  commonly  call  themselves,  rational 
•  defenders  of  Christianity.  It  has  always  been  one  leading  artifice 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  controversy,  and  one  by  which  she  has 
succeeded  in  deluding  and  deceiving  many,  to  represent  any  other 
system  but  her  own  as  attended  with  great  doubts  and  uncer¬ 
tainties,  as  affording  no  firm  and  stable  basis  on  which  man’s 
faith  and  hope  may  rest ;  that  thus  she  may  shut  them  up  into 
the  authority  of  an  infallible  church,  which  is  alleged  to  enjoy 
the  certain  presence 'and  the  unerring  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  leading  questions  which  she  has  started  with  this 
view,  and  which  she  has  laboured  to  involve  in  as  much  darkness 
and  obscurity  as  she  could,  are  these  three — 1.  How  can  men 
know  with  certainty  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God  ? 
2.  How  can  men  know  with  certainty  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
statements  of  Scripture,  or  be  assured  that  the  meaning  which 
they  may  attach  to  them  is  correct  ?  3.  How  can  men  attain 

to  any  comfortable  assurance  that  they  individually  are  in  a 
safe  state,  and  may  look  forward  with  confidence  to  heaven  as 
their  rest? 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  laboured  hard  to  prove  that  none  of 
these  questions  can  be  satisfactorily  answered  ;  that  nothing  like 
certainty  or  assurance  can  be  attained  in  regard  to  any  of  the  sub¬ 
jects  to  which  they  refer,  except  by  admitting  the  infallibility  of 
the  church  and  submitting  to  her  guidance.  And  in  discussing 
these  various  points,  and  endeavouring  to  establish  a  ground  of  cer¬ 
tainty  in  regard  to  them,  the  Reformers,  and  indeed  evangelical 
Protestants  in  general,  have  given  much  prominence  to  the  witness 
or  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  regard  to  the  last  of  these 
questions,  respecting  the  assurance  of  personal  salvation,  it  does 
not  come  at  all  within  the  class  of  subjects  that  for  the  present 
must  occupy  our  attention.  We  would  only  remark  in  passing, 
since  we  have  been  led  to  mention  it,  that  it  was  in  consequence 

of  the  labours  of  Romish  writers  to  shew  that  there  could  be  no 

\ 

certain  ground  for  personal  assurance  of  salvation  except  in  the 
authority  of  the  church ;  that  there  was  inserted  in  what  is  com¬ 
monly  called  “  The  National  Covenant  of  Scotland  ”  a  condemna¬ 
tion  of  what  is  described  as  ^^the  general  and  doubtsome  faith  of 


ROMISH  SCEPTICISM. 


319 


the  Eomish  Church  ” ;  and  that  the  authors  of  the  Westminster 
Confession,  after  asserting  that  believers  may  in  this  life  be  cer¬ 
tainly  assured  that  they  are  in  the  state  of  grace,  added,  “  This 
certainty  is  not  a  bare  conjectural  and  probable  persuasion  founded 
upon  a  fallible  hope,  but  an  infallible  assurance  of  faith.”  We 
may  also  observe  that  it  was  the  anxiety  of  the  Reformers  to 
establish  a  firm  ground  of  personal  assurance  in  opposition  to  the 
labours  of  Papists  to  overturn  every  other  ground  except  that 
miserable  one  which  they  hold  out  to  their  deluded  votaries,  and 
which  has  sunk  millions  to  hell  with  a  lie  in  their  right  hand,  that 
led  some  of  them  to  fall  into  the  error  of  representing  assurance  as 
of  the  essence,  and  to  include  it  in  their  formal  definition  of 
saving  faith  ;  an  error  which  has  been  been  carefully  corrected  in 
the  Westminster  Confession. 

The  second  of  these  questions,  about  the  grounds  of  the  certainty 
of  our  knowledge  of  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture,  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  advert  to  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  course,  when  we 
have  to  explain  the  general  principles  bearing  upon  the  ascertain¬ 
ing  and  establishing  of  the  true  import  of  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
with  the  first  of  these  questions  only  that  we  have  at  present  to 
do.  But  the  further  prosecution  of  this  subject  must  be  deferred 
till  next  lecture. 


LECTURE  XXy. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  SPIEIT,  FOLLOWING  THE  CONFESSION 

OF  FAITH. 


The  general  subject  which  I  brought  under  your  notice  in  last 
lecture,  and  mean  to  prosecute  in  this,  is  usually  discussed 
by  the  older  divines  under  the  head  of  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  and  may  be  said  to  comprehend  a  discussion  of  the 
causes,  grounds,  and  reasons  of  our  faith,  or  firm  and  assured  per¬ 
suasion  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  The 
authority  of  the  Scripture  is  its  right  to  command,  to  exercise 
sovereign  control,  to  be  received  and  employed  as  the  supreme  and 
ultimate  standard  of  our  opinions  and  actions.  If  it  has  any  such 
right  or  authority,  this  must  come  from  God,  who  alone  is  Lord  of 
the  conscience ;  and  hence  the  Confession  of  Faith  says,  in  the  fourth 
section  of  the  first  chapter,  the  one  just  preceding  that  to  which  I 
have  already  adverted,  and  mean  again  to  advert  to  more  fully, 
“  The  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be  believed 
and  obeyed,  depends  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or 
church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (who  is  truth  itself),  the  author 
thereof,  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received  because  it  is  the  word  of 
God.”  This  seems  a  very  evident,  almost  a  self-evident  principle  ; 
and  yet,  like  almost  all  the  other  statements  in  the  Confession,  it 
is  a  deliverance  upon  a  point  of  controversy,  a  denial  of  an  error 
that  has  been  broached.  The  error  that  is  here  denied  is  one  that 
was  maintained  by  some  of  the  bolder  and  less  scrupulous  Papists, 
who,  in  their  anxiety  to  depress  the  Scriptures  and  to  magnify 
the  church,  asserted  that  their  authority  depended  upon,  or  was 
derived  from,  the  testimony  of  the  church  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that 
the  formal  ground  or  reason  why  we  are  bound  to  submit  to  the 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


321 


authority  of  the  Scriptures,  was,  not  because  God  was  their  author, 
and  has  given  them  to  us,  requiring  us  by  his  own  authority  to 
believe  and  obey  them,  but  merely  because  the  church  has  pro¬ 
pounded  them  to  us  as  authoritative.  It  was  against  this  error 
that  the  declaration  just  quoted  from  the  Confession  was  directed. 
Some,  however,  of  the  abler  and  more  cautious  Papists  saw  that 
this  was  a  principle  too  offensive  and  too  evidently  erroneous  to 
be  maintained  with  plausibility  or  success,  and  invented  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  absolutely  and  rela¬ 
tively,  its  authority  in  itself,  and  its  authority  in  reference  to  us — 
in  se  and  quoad  nos — admitting,  in  accordance  with  the  principle 
laid  down  in  the  Confession,  that  its  authority,  absolutely  and  in  itself, 
depends  only  on  God  its  author,  i.e.  is  based  upon  its  being  God’s 
word,  they  still  maintain  that  its  authority  relatively  to  us  depends 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  church  proclaiming  it  to  be  the  word  of 
God  and  authoritative.  By  this  they  mean  in  substance,  not  that 
Scripture  derives  its  authority  or  its  binding  and  obliging  powers 
from  the  church,  but  that  the  testimony  of  the  church  is  not 
merely  a  part  of  the  proof  or  evidence  by  which  the  Scripture  may 
be  shewn  to  be  the  word  of  God,  but  is  the  basis  and  foundation 
of  the  whole  proof,  and  affords  thereby  certain  arguments  by  which 
men  can  be  thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  Scripture  is  of  divine 
origin,  and  is  therefore  possessed  of  infallible  authority.  In  oppo¬ 
sition  to  this  doctrine,  the  Confession  lays  down  the  principle 
which  I  quoted  in  last  lecture,  viz.,  ‘'yet  notwithstanding,  our 
full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine 
authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts.”  A  state¬ 
ment  which  may  be  regarded  as  embodying  these  propositions — 
first,  that  men,  without  believing  in  the  infallibility  of  any  man 
or  church,  may  attain  to  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the 
infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture — in 
other  words,  to  a  firm  and  assured  faith  or  conviction  that  it  is  the 
word  of  God ;  and  second,  that  this  is  to  be  produced  by  the  inward 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in 
our  hearts.  When  the  Papists  put  the  question,  as  they  often  do, 
“  How  do  you  know  with  certainty  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word 
of  God  their  object,  as  I  explained  in  the  end  of  my  last  lecture, 

X 


322 


TWENTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


is  to  involve  the  proof  of  this  truth,  which  they  profess  to  hold 
as  well  as  we,  in  as  much  doubt  or  uncertainty  as  possible,  in  order 
to  shut  up  men  to  the  testimony  of  an  infallible  church  as  the  only 
sure  and  certain  evidence  in  support  of  it.  When  Protestants 
have  answered  this  question  by  referring  to  the  various  branches  of 
evidence  by  which  we  can  and  do  prove  against  unbelievers,  first, 
the  general  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation ;  and  then  second, 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  some 
Popish  writers  have  grasped  at  the  opportunity  thus  afforded 
them  of  taking  up  the  infidel  cause,  and  have  exerted  their 
ingenuity  in  labouring  to  shew  that  these  proofs,  even  as  against 
infidels,  are  attended  with  great  and  almost  inextricable  difficul¬ 
ties,  and  that  they  cannot  form  the  basis  or  ground  of  any  firm 
or  certain  persuasion.  And  indeed  it  is  very  manifest  that  many 
Popish  writers  have  been  willing  enough  to  help  to  make  men 
infidels,  if  they  could  only  withdraw  them  from  the  ranks  of  Pro¬ 
testantism.  They  have  given  abundant  evidence  that  they  were 
ready  to  contribute  to  overturn  the  foundations  of  all  faith  and 
all  religion,  in  the  hope  of  catching  some  of  those  who  might  thus 
be  thrown  loose ;  a  fact  which  tends,  along  with  others  of  a  similar 
kind,  to  prove  that  Satan,  though  he  is  no  doubt  well  aware  that 
Papacy  is  his  masterpiece,  from  the  singular  skill  with  which  it  is 
fitted  to  secure  and  retain  a  powerful  ascendancy  over  the  minds 
of  multitudes,  does  not  care  much  whether  men  become  Papists  or 
infidels. 

Other  Popish  writers,  however,  having  more  regard  to  decency, 
and  admitting  that  the  controversy  between  them  and  Protestants 
upon  this  point  does  not  turn  upon  the  question  whether  the 
Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  and  can  be  satisfactorily  proved 
to  be  so  against  those  who  deny  it, — as  the  more  respectable  Popish 
writers,  when  dealing  with  infidels,  establish  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Bible,  very  much  in  the  same  way  as  Protestants 
do, — but  upon  this  question  whether  or  not  Protestants  denying 
the  infallibility  of  the  church,  can  have  any  certain  and  assured 
ground  for  the  persuasion  they  entertain  that  the  Scriptures  are 
the  word  of  God,  meet  the  adduction  of  the  ordinary  arguments 
by  which  this  is  proved  against  infidels,  by  a  statement  to  this 
effect,  that  these  arguments,  though  sufficient  to  stop  the  mouths 
of  gainsayers,  cannot  be  the  ground  of  a  firm  and  certain  persua- 


DIVINE  AND  HUMAN  FAITH. 


323 


sion,  since  they  are  based  only  upon  the  testimony  of  man,  and 
upon  these  general  rational  arguments  or  motives  of  credibility 
which  may  apply  to  other  subjects  of  historical  investigation,  and 
cannot  lay  a  basis  for  that  firm  and  unwavering  persuasion  which 
faith  implies,  and  which  alone  can  be  satisfactory  as  the  ground 
of  procedure  in  religious  matters.  The  schoolmen  were  accus¬ 
tomed  to  make  a  distinction  between  what  they  called  human  or 
acquired  faith  based  upon  human  testimony,  and  divine  or  infused 
faith  based  upon  divine  testimonj^  The  Papists  applied  this 
distinction  to  the  matter  in  hand,  and  asserted  that  the  ordinary 
rational  arguments  by  which  the  Scriptures  might  be  proved 
as  against  infidels,  resolved  ultimately  into  human  testimony,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  the  basis  of  a  divine  faith  or  a  full  persua¬ 
sion  and  assurance ;  and  that  the  divine  testimony  which  alone 
could  be  the  basis  of  a  divine  faith,  and  alone  therefore  could 
afford  a  full  security  and  a  satisfactory  ground  for  reliance  in  the 
conviction  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  is  to  be  found 
only  in  the  testimony  of  the  church,  which,  being  infallibly 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  thus  brings  a  divine  testimony  to 
bear  upon  the  conclusive  settlement  of  the  question,  and  the 
thorough  establishment  of  men’s  convictions.  Now,  in  dealing 
with  this  objection  of  the  Papists,'  the  Reformers  generally 
conceded  to  them,  that  a  divine  as  distinguished  from  a  human 
faith  was  necessary,  in  order  that  God’s  revelation  might  produce 
all  its  proper  intended  effects,  and  that  men  might  derive  from 
it  all  the  benefits  which  it  was  intended  to  convey  or  confer,  and 
moreover,  that  this  divine  faith  must  rest  upon  a  divine  testimony ; 
but  they  contended — first,  that  the  testimony  of  the  church  was 
not  a  divine  testimony,  since  its  claim  to  infallibility,  or  to  the 
constant  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  preserving  it  from  all 
error,  not  only  could  not  be  established,  but  could  be  proved  to 
be  utterly  unfounded ;  and  second,  that  believers,  though  denying 
the  infallibility  of  the  church,  had  a  divine  testimony  to  the 
infallible  truth  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  in  the 
testimony  or  witness  of  the  Spirit. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  topics,  the  alleged  infallibility 
of  the  church,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  to  it  when  we 
come  to  consider  its  bearing  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
or  the  discovery  of  its  true  and  certain  meaning.  It  is  with 


324 


TWENTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


the  second  topic  we  have  at  present  to  do.  Our  faith  in  the 
Christian  revelation  itself,  or  in  the  truth  of  the  contents  of 
the  Scriptures,  may  be  said  in  a  sense  to  rest  upon  a  divine 
testimony,  inasmuch  as  we  believe  and  submit  to  it  only  because 
we  are  persuaded  that  it  came  from  God.  But  the  question 
we  are  at  present  considering  respects  a  different  point,  viz., 
whether  or  not,  and  if  so,  how,  we  have  or  may  have  a  divine 
testimony  as  the  basis  of  a  divine  faith  that  it  did  come  from 
God,  that  it  is  his  word.  There  is  some  difficulty  in  forming  a 
clear  and  definite  conception  of  some  of  the  views  that  have  been 
propounded  in  regard  to  the  distinction  between  a  divine  and  a 
human  faith,  as  founded  respectively  upon  a  divine  and  a  human 
testimony.  Owen  and  Haly burton  have  both  laboured  this  dis¬ 
tinction  in  their  books  upon  the  reason  of  faith,  but  do  not,  so  far 
as  I  can  see,  give  any  very  clear  or  satisfactory  explanation  of  it, 
though  these  works  certainly  contain  a  great  deal  of  valuable  and 
excellent  matter.  What  is  necessary  practically,  and  without 
entering  into  useless  speculations  upon  this  subject,  is,  that  men 
have  such  a  conviction  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  resting  upon  grounds  of  the  validity  of  which 
they  are  satisfied,  as  frees  them  from  all  doubt  and  anxiety,  as  is 
sufficient  to  preserve  them  from  danger  of  falling  into  infidelity ; 
and  especially,  and  above  all,  as  leads  them  to  study  aright  the 
Scripture  itself,  the  word  of  God,  and  to  submit  implicitly  to  its 
guidance.  That  no  man  has  ever  had  such  a  faith  or  conviction 
of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible  produced  in  his 
mind  by  the  means  of  what  are  sometimes  called  the  rational 
evidences  by  which  this  can  be  established  against  infidels,  as  in 
point  of  fact  led  him  to  such  a  study  of  the  word  that  he  was 
thereby  made  wise  unto  salvation,  we  know  no  grounds  whatever 
for  asserting.  There  is  nothing  either  in  the  constitution  of  man, 
or  in  any  information  which  God  has  given  us,  as  to  his  own  ordi¬ 
nary  procedure  in  conferring  upon  men  knowledge  and  salvation, 
which  precludes  the  possibility  of  such  a  result.  It  is  true  that 
when  such  a  man  has  been  brought  under  the  influence  of  the 

O 

truth  itself,  he  will,  under  the  guidance  of  the  same  Spirit  who 
opened  his  eyes  to  behold  God’s  glory  and  to  see  Christ,  discern 
both  in  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  effects 
which  its  statements  have  produced  upon  himself,  new  and  stronger 


PROBABLE  AND  DEMONSTRATIVE  EVIDENCE.  325 


proofs  than  ever  he  had  before  of  its  divine  origin;  and  if  he 
thought  previously  that  upon  the  ground  of  the  rational  evidences 
he  was  secure  against  the  danger  of  falling  into  infidelity,  he  will 
feel  now  more  clearly  and  decidedly  that  it  is  in  a  manner 
impossible,  after  what  he  has  seen  and  experienced,  that  he  should 
ever  come  to  deny  or  even  to  doubt  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of 
God.  All  this  is  true  ;  it  is  realised  in  the  experience  of  believers, 
and  in  these  circumstances,  they  do  or  may  possess  a  full  per¬ 
suasion  and  assurance,  such  as  is  quite  sufficient  to  fill  them  with 
peace  and  joy,  that  in  walking  by  the  Bible  they  are  following 
a  safe  and  sure  guide  which  will  conduct  them  at  length  to  heaven 
and  happiness.  A  fuller  persuasion,  however,  a  higher  and  more 
perfect  assurance  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible, 
does  not  seem  to  be  what  is  intended  by  the  distinction  between 
a  human  and  divine  faith,  by  many  authors  who  have  treated  of 
this  subject.  They  treat  it  as  a  difference  in  kind,  and  not  in 
degree ;  though  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Confession  of  Faith 
does  not  specify  anything  as  to  its  nature,  properly  so  called,  as 
distinguished  from  its  cause  and  source,  except  that  it  is  a  full 
persuasion  and  assurance.  The  ascription  indeed  of  this  full 
persuasion  and  assurance  to  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
implies  that  the  faith  or  conviction  produced  by  the  mere  influence 
of  the  rational  arguments,  which  may  be  made  good,  according  to 
the  ordinary  principles  of  men’s  constitution  and  the  ordinary 
rules  of  reasoning,  as  against  unbelievers,  does  not  possess  such 
strength  and  certainty  as  to  be  entitled  to  be  described  by  these 
terms.  And  this  is  in  entire  accordance  at  once  with  sound  philo¬ 
sophy  and  ordinary  experience.  Philosophers  are  accustomed  to 
speak  of  probable  as  distinguished  from  demonstrative  evidence, 
and  indeed  to  divide  all  evidence  into  the  two  branches  of  pro¬ 
bable  and  demonstrative,  not  intending  to  convey  the  idea  that 
probable  evidence  does  not  sufficiently  prove  a  proposition,  and 
impose  upon  men  a  valid  obligation  to  believe  and  act  upon  it, 
but  merely  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  subjects  with  which  it  is 
conversant,  it  does  not  produce  the  same  kind  or  degree  of  certainty 
as  that  which  is  called  demonstrative  does.  Demonstrative  evi¬ 
dence  applies  only  to  necessary  truth,  as  it  is  called,  to  abstract 
ideas  or  conceptions ;  and  it  is  only  of  these  subjects  that  demon¬ 
stration,  strictly  so  called,  is  predicated.  Contingent  truths  can 


326 


TWENTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


have  only  what  is  called  moral  or  probable  evidence,  which  may 
indeed  lead  men  firmly  to  believe,  and  impose  upon  them  an 
imperative  obligation  to  act,  but  which  does  not  carry  with  it  the 
same  clear  and  commanding  certainty  as  demonstrative  evidence. 

Now,  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  viewed  as  a 
subject  to  be  investigated  by  men  in  the  ordinary  use  of  their 
faculties,  is  a  contingent,  not  a  necessary  truth.  It  resolves 
ultimately  into  a  question  of  fact — the  question,  viz..  Whether  or 
not  God  did  supernaturally  guide  and  direct  the  authors  of  the 
books  of  Scripture  in  composing  them,  so  that  they  are  his  word. 
The  fact  is  established,  not,  like  the  truths  of  the  demonstrative 
sciences,  by  a  mere  examination  and  comparison  of  abstract  ideas, 
but  by  the  exercise  of  our  ordinary  faculties  upon  a  variety  of 
materials  derived  from  all  the  ordinary  sources  of  human  know¬ 
ledge,  especially  the  evidence  of  sense  and  the  evidence  of  human 
testimony.  The  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
would  therefore  be  said  to  rest  upon  probable  evidence,  not  that 
the  evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  it,  and  to  impose  upon  men 
without  any  special  divine  interposition  an  obligation  to  receive 
and  act  upon  it  as  a  truth  or  reality,  but  merely  that  it  is  not 
fitted  of  itself  to  produce  that  peculiarly  full  persuasion  and  com¬ 
manding  assurance  which  is  the  result  of  demonstration.  And 
experience  very  plainly  indicates  that  when  men  have  only  that 
faith  and  conviction  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Bible  which  is  just  the  result  of  the  ordinary  exercise  of  our 
faculties  upon  the  rational  arguments  by  which,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  it  is  established,  their  persuasion  of  its  infallible  truth  and 
divine  authority  does  not  usually  seem  to  be  very  powerful  and 
efficacious,  or  to  produce  the  practical  results  which,  in  right 
reason,  might  be  expected  from  it.  Now,  the  Holy  Spirit  may, 
and  does,  seal  this  evidence  and  the  truth  which  it  establishes 
upon  men’s  understandings  and  hearts,  so  as  to  give  them  a  fuller 
persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  truth  than  they  would  otherwise 
possess  or  attain  to ;  and  in  doing  so  there  is  no  reason  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  as  we  formerly  remarked,  why  he  should  not 
employ,  for  producing  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance,  any 
consideration  that  is  really  in  itself,  and  on  rational  grounds,  a 
proof  or  evidence  of  the  truth  which  he  is  ready  to  seal  and 
impress.  This  is  true ;  and  it  is  important  that  we  should  ever 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


327 


remember  tliat,  whatever  difficulties  may  attach  to  the  more 
minute  and  precise  explanation  of  this  subject,  this  at  least  is 
true  and  certain,  that  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary 
to  produce  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  and 
divine  authority  of  the  Scripture,  and  that  therefore,  in  dwelling 
upon  the  proof  or  evidence  by  which  it  may  be  established  in 
argument,  either  for  the  conviction  of  others  or  for  our  own 
confirmation,  we  should  ever  cherish  a  deep  sense  of  our  depend¬ 
ence  upon  his  agency,  and  earnestly  seek  to  enjoy  his  presence 
and  blessing.  But  this  general  truth  is  not  the  whole  of  what  was 
maintained  by  the  Reformers  when  they  conceded  the  necessity 
of  a  divine  testimony  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  asserted  that  believers  had  this,  though  they 
denied  the  infallibility  of  the  church  ;  nor  does  it  come  up  to  the 
full  import  of  what  is  laid  down  in  the  declaration  of  the  Confes¬ 
sion,  to  which  we  have  adverted. 

The  Confession  says  that  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of 
the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
and  our  thorough  and  efficacious  conviction  that  it  is  the  word  of 
God,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness 
by  and  with  the  word  of  God  in  our  hearts,”  which  implies,  not 
only  that  men  have  not  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  that  the 
Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  until  they  become  the  subjects  of 
the  inward  work  of  the  Spirit,  but  also  moreover  that  they  have 
not  this  full  persuasion  and  assurance  until,  in  this  inward  work, 
he  bear  witness  by  and  with  the  word  itself.  This  operation  of 
the  Spirit  is  here  called  his  inward  work,  to  distinguish  it  from 
wffiat  has  been  called  his  outward  work,  or  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  apostles  under  his  agency, 
which  also  afford  an  evidence  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  though  some  intermediate  processes  of  argument  are 
necessary  before,  from  that  outward  work  of  the  Spirit,  the  con¬ 
clusion  is  reached.  'It  is  an  inward  work  of  his  in  our  hearts,  and 
it  is  described  as  his  bearing  witness.  To  bear  witness  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  does  not  always  or  necessarily  mean  to  declare  directly,  or 
assert  in  express  words,  but  is  sometimes  used  in  a  wider  and 
more  general  sense — in  that,  viz.,  of  producing  or  furnishing 
materials  or  proofs  from  which,  when  rightly  used  and  applied, 
the  conclusion  follows,  or  may  be  deduced.  “  But  I  have  greater 


328 


TWENTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


witness  {jicioTVPiav  /xs/^ova)  than  that  of  John  ;  for  the  works  which 
the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same  works  that  I  do, 
bear  witness  of  me  h^ov)  that  the  Father  hath  sent 

me'’  (John  v.  36).  “  And  God,  which  knoweth  the  hearts,  bare 

them  witness  auro/$),  giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost, 

even  as  he  did  unto  us  ”  (Acts  xv.  8).  God  also  bearing  them 
witness  {6\}n>7TiiJ.a^Tvo(jmTog)  with  signs  and  wonders,  and  with  divers 
miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  his  will” 
(Heb.  ii.  4).  All  then  that  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  position 
that  the  Spirit  bears  witness  in  our  hearts  to  the  divine  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is,  that  he  is  the  author  or  efficient 
cause  of  this  conviction,  and  that  he  produces  it  by  supplying  us 
with  the  necessary  means  or  materials  of  effecting  it,  and  directing 
us  in  the  application  of  them,  so  that  thus  the  conviction  is  firmly 
and  thoroughly  established.  This  is  all  that  the  word  necessarily 
implies,  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  why,  in  these  passages  ot 
Scripture  which  speak  of  the  Spirit  testifying  or  bearing  witness, 
or  in  this  passage  of  the  Confession,  we  should  understand  it  in 
any  other  sense ;  and  especially  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
regard  it  as  implying  that  by  a  distinct  intimation  or  explicit 
assertion  he  directly  or  immediately  tells  or  assures  any  believer 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God. 

The  Confession  however  further  specifies  the  means  or 
materials  which  the  Spirit  employs  in  producing  this  full 
persuasion  and  assurance — it  is  by  and  with  the  word.” 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  by  these  expressions  “  by  and  with 
the  word  ”  are  meant  two  different  classes  of  materials  or  proofs 
which  the  Spirit  employs  in  his  work  of  persuading  and  assuring 
men  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  When  he  is 
said  to  bear  witness  by  the  word,  the  word  is  viewed  objectively, 
as  something  out  of  believers  and  apart  from  them,  which  they 
contemplate  and  examine,  and  in  which,  when  they  contemplate 
and  examine  it,  they  are  enabled  by  the  Spirit  to  see  plain  marks 
or  proofs  that  it  came  from  God,  and  is  stamped  with  his  authority. 
In  short,  this  was  intended  to  indicate  the  internal  light  of  the 
Bible,  including  its  self-evidencing  power,  all  those  things  in  it, 
and  about  it,  which,  when  men’s  eyes  are  opened  by  the  Spirit  to 
behold  them,  do  irresistibly  lead  them  to  God  as  its  author.  It 
may  include  the  whole  of  the  internal  evidence  of  the  divine  oriorin 

o 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


329 


of  the  Scriptures,  everything  in  the  Bible  itself  which,  indepen¬ 
dently  of  anything  we  know  concerning  the  human  authors  and 
the  actual  composition  of  it,  as  a  matter  of  fact  affords  proof  of  its 
having  come  from  God,  and  even  those  branches  of  the  internal 
evidences  which  are  in  some  measure  capable  of  being  apprehended 
and  discerned  by  men  who  have  not  yet  received  the  Spirit.  For, 
as  the  leading  object  of  this  whole  declaration  is  just  to  assert  that 
a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority 
of  the  Scripture  is  not  attained  until  men  have  become  the  sub¬ 
jects  of  an  inward  work  of  the  Spirit,  there  is  nothing  in  the  con¬ 
struction  of  the  sentence  which  necessarily  or  even  fairly  implies 
that  those  things  mentioned  in  the  preceding  part  of  it,  and  there 
declared  to  be  arguments  whereby  the  Holy  Scripture  doth  abund¬ 
antly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God,  viz,,  ‘‘the  heavenliness 
of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style, 
the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  which  is  to 
give  all  glory  to  God,  and  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only 
way  of  man’s  salvation,”  though  capable  of  being  apprehended  in 
some  measure,  as  we  shewed  you,  by  natural  men  who  have  not 
the  Spirit,  yet  being  in  the  word,  should  be  excluded  from  the 
materials  employed  by  the  Spirit  when  he  bears  witness  by  the 
word  in  men’s  hearts,  and  thereby  produces  a  full  assurance  of 
the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  probable  however, 
though  the  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  this,  and  we  are  there¬ 
fore  not  shut  up  to  this  meaning,  that  the  inward  work  of  the  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  the  word,  w^as  intended  to  refer  chiefly  to  these 
proofs  or  marks  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  which  are  to  be 
found  indeed  in  itself,  viewed  objectively,  but  which  are  yet  not 
seen  or  discerned  at  all  until  men  have  the  Spirit  working  in 
them,  and  opening  their  eyes.  And  this  bearing  witness  with  the 
word  in  our  hearts,  as  distinguished  from  his  bearing  witness  hy 
the  word,  is  intended  to  indicate  the  effects  or  results  produced  by 
the  Spirit  with  the  word,  i.e.  acting  in  conjunction  with  it  upon 
men’s  hearts  and  characters,  usually  comprehended  under  the  head 
of  the  experimental  evidence.  The  word — i.e.  the  doctrines  and 
statements  of  Scripture — produces  in  a  certain  sense  these  changes 
or  results  ;  and  the  Spirit  produces  them,  acting  along  with  the 
word,  or  using  it  as  his  instrument,  he  alone  being  their  efficient 
cause;  and  by  producing  these  effects  or  changes  upon  men  by  the 


330 


TWENTY-FIFTH  LFCTUFF. 


instrumentality  of  the  word,  and  thereby  affording  abundant  proof 
or  materials  for  the  conclusion  that  it  came  from  God,  he  bears 
witness  with  the  word  in  our  hearts  to  the  infallible  truth  and 
divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  produces  a  full  persua¬ 
sion  and  assurance  of  this.  In  illustration  of  this  assertion  of  the 
necessity  of  this  inward  work  of  the  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  our  hearts,  I  refer  you  to  a  passage  in  Owen’s 
Reason  of  Faith  (vol.  iii.  pp.  330-338).  Indeed,  I  may  remark 
that  Owen’s  two  works  on  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible 
and  on  the  reason  of  faith  are  in  reality,  though  not  so  intended, 
a  very  full  commentary  upon  these  two  sections  of  the  Confession 
which  we  have  been  considering — the  fourth  and  fifth  of  the  first 
chapter.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  views  which  he  has 
there  unfolded  were  very  much  in  their  whole  scope  and  substance 
the  same  as  those  entertained  by  the  venerable  authors  of  our 
Confession  upon  this  subject,  though  in  the  detailed  elucidation 
of  his  sentiments  Owen  has  fallen  into  some  obscurities,  and  per¬ 
haps  into  some  errors  and  excesses  to  which  the  more  careful  and 
compendious  statement  of  general  principles  in  the  Confession  does 
not  afford  any  countenance.  The  quotation  is  a  long  one,  much 
longer  than  any  which  I  have  ever  before  had  occasion  to  submit 
to  you  ;  but  it  is  very  excellent  in  itself,  and  it  is  a  much  more 
valuable  and  authoritative  commentary  upon  this  important 
declaration  of  the  Confession  than  any  I  could  either  discover  or 
produce. 


LECTURE  XXYI. 


PRINCIPLES  AND  ARGUMENTS  OP  THE  REFORXIERS  ON 
THE  TESTIMONY  OP  THE  SPIRIT  —  BAXTER  AND 
HALYBURTON. 

TN  last  lecture  we  gave  you  some  explanation  of  the  controversy 
that  was  carried  on  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
Reformers  in  regard  to  the  ground  and  evidence  of  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  proof  that  they  are  the  word  of  God, 
and  illustrated  the  leading  positions  bearing  upon  this  subject  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  sections  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
substance  of  all  that  is  taught  or  implied  in  the  statements  of 
the  Confession  upon  the  subject  may  be  comprehended  in  the 
following  propositions : — 1.  That  the  formal  ground  or  reason  of 
our  acknowledging  and  submitting  to  the  authority  of  the  sacred 
Scripture,  is  because  it  is  the  word  of  God.  2.  That  there  are  a 
variety  of  arguments,  external  and  internal,  whereby  it  is  satis¬ 
factorily  proved  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  that  these  arguments 
are  of  such  a  kind  as  that  in  right  reason  they  ought  to  convince 
unbelievers  of  its  divine  origin  and  authority,  and  constrain  them 
to  examine  and  study  it  as  a  divine  revelation.  3.  That  this 
conviction  or  faith  in  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  may  be  attained  in  the  ordinary  use  of  men's 
faculties  upon  the  ordinary  rational  grounds  of  evidence  appli¬ 
cable  to  the  subject,  does  not  produce  or  imply  what  may  be 
called  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance,  and  in  this  respect  accords 
with  what  is  exhibited  in  all  other  departments  of  the  truth  that 
is  contingent  and  not  necessary,  and  that  is  based  upon  what 
philosophers  call  moral  or  probable,  as  distinguished  from  demon¬ 
strative  evidence.  4.  That  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of 


332 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  derived  only 
from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  course  is 
enjoyed  only  by  believers.  5.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  produces 
this  full  persuasion  and  assurance  by  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  their  hearts — i.e.  that  he  produces  and  provides 
the  materials  by  which  this  great  truth  is  established,  and  enables 
them  so  to  use  and  apply  the  materials  as  to  reach  and  to  retain 
this  assurance  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God;  and  that  these 
materials  or  grounds  of  evidence  are  of  two  classes,  indicated  in 
the  Confession  by  the  expressions  hy  and  with  the  word — the  former 
indicating  the  proofs  or  marks  of  God  and  his  agency,  which  are 
seen  in  the  word  itself  when  men’s  eyes  are  opened  by  the  Spirit 
to  discern  them ;  and  the  latter  indicating  those  changes  which 
are  produced  upon  men’s  hearts  and  characters  by  the  Spirit  in 
conjunction  with  the  word,  or  using  the  word,  i.e.  the  doctrines 
or  statements  of  Scripture,  as  his  instrument  in  effecting  them. 
All  this  is  clearly  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  and  it  is  fully  con¬ 
firmed  by  experience.  And  in  this  way,  while  in  the  rational 
evidence  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  which  can  be  maintained  according  to 
the  ordinary  laws  of  reasoning  against  all  gainsayers,  we  have 
sufficiently  abundant  grounds  on  which  we  can  prove  to  any  man 
that  it  is  his  duty  in  right  reason  to  receive  and  treat  the  Bible  as 
a  divine  revelation,  and  to  examine  it  with  earnestness,  diligence, 
and  prayer,  that  he  may  ascertain  the  will  of  God  ;  we  see  also 
abundant  provision  made  for  confirming  the  faith  of  those  who  have 
believed  through  grace,  and  enabling  them  to  hold  fast  their  profes¬ 
sion  without  wavering,  and  to  go  on  from  one  degree  of  knowledge 
and  grace  unto  another  until  they  appear  before  God  perfect  in  Zion. 

We  have  not  yet,  however,  fully  explained  to  you  how  it  was 
that  the  Reformers  endeavoured  to  shew  that  in  this  witness  of 
the  Spirit  they  had  a  divine  testimony  for  their  conviction  that 
the  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  so  their  faith  was  a 
divine  as  distinguished  from  a  human  faith.  Their  general 
principle  was  this,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bore  witness  by  and  with 
the  word  in  the  hearts  of  believers,  and  that  this  was  the  Spirit 
himself  assuring  believers  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God, 
and  that  thus  they  had  a  divine  testimony  or  assurance,  even 
that  of  the  Spirit,  to  this  fundamental  truth.  This,  as  a  general 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


333 


principle  rightly  understood,  is  undoubtedly  true  and  important. 
But  in  the  discussions  to  which  this  ,  subject  gave  rise,  the  prin¬ 
ciple  was  sometimes  misapplied  by  Protestants,  and  carried  too 
far,  so  as  to  afford  some  advantages  to  Papists  on  the  one  hand, 
and  to  enthusiasts  on  the  other;  and  then,  through  the  errors  of 
the  enthusiasts,  to  those  rationalists  who  were  opposed  to  the 
testimony  or  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  any  sense.  Some  of  those 
who  have  opposed  Popish  and  defended  Protestant  views  upon 
this  subject,  have  gone  further  than  was  necessary  or  warrantable 
in  admitting  the  absolute  necessity  of  what  is  called  a  divine 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  Scripture  is  the 
word  of  God,  as  if  every  one  must  have  this  before  he  can  rest 
with  peace  and  confidence  on  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible,  and 
must  be  able  to  give  some  account  of  this  as  the  ground  of  his 
assurance  to  others.  Neither  Protestants  nor  Panists,  in  discussinsf 
this  subject,  have  always  attended  with  sufficient  care  to  the 
distinction  between  the  evidence  by  which  we  can  prove  this 
truth  to  others,  and  that  by  which  we  may  be  confirmed  and 
thoroughly  established  in  our  own  conviction  of  it.  Men  need 
not  be  very  much  concerned  with  regard  to  the  precise  character, 
as  a  mere  mental  state,  of  their  belief  in  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Bible,  with  regard  to  the  precise  way  in  which  it  has  been 
produced,  provided  they  are  truly  persuaded  of  it,  and  can  give 
such  reasons  for  their  persuasion  as  are  satisfactory  to  their  own 
minds,  and  ought  in  sound  reason  to  be  satisfactory  to  others ; 
and  provided  this  persuasion  is  of  such  a  kind  as  to  lead  them 
really  to  deal  with  the  Scripture  as  coming  from  God,  stamped 
with  his  authority,  and  containing  an  authentic  revelation  of  his 
will.  They  are  not  to  imagine  that  they  are  exempt  from  any 
obligation  to  deal  with  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  because 
they  may  not  yet  have  attained  to  that  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  which  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  can  produce,  and  when 
they  are  using  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  increasing  in  their 
acquaintance  with  its  statements  under  the  guidance  and  teaching 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  having  thus  further  discoveries  opened  up  to 
them  of  the  will  of  God,  and  being  brought  more  fully  under  its 
practical  power,  they  will  have  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance 
that  it  is  the  word  of  God,  without  probably  making  this  question 
a  subject  of  much  direct  consideration,  or  feeling  much  necessity 


334 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


for  giving  a  specific  statement  even  to  themselves  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  this  full  persuasion  rests. 

It  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  can  produce  this  per¬ 
suasion,  and  that  he  does  not  produce  it  until  he  bears  witness  in 
their  hearts,  by  and  with  the  word,  by  enabling  them  to  see  the 
traces  of  God’s  hand  in  the  word  in  producing  it,  and  of  his 
agency  upon  themselves  in  effecting  important  changes  through 
means  of  the  word,  which  is  thus  proved  to  come  from  himself. 
But  when  they  have  once  been  brought  into  this  state  of  full  per¬ 
suasion  and  assurance,  and  have  been  thereafter  assaulted  with 
temptations  to  infidelity — and  this  is  really  the  only  case  in  which 
the  question  can  become  one  of  any  practical  importance — we 
cannot  see  any  reason  to  doubt  that  they  themselves  may  have 
recourse  to,  and  that  the  Spirit  may  employ  for  preserving  them 
in  or  restoring  them  to  a  full  persuasion,  any  considerations  or 
arguments  which  really  go  to  prove  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word 
of  God,  even  those  which  may  be  founded  partly  upon  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  man.  As  some  of  the  Beformers,  in  their  anxiety  to 
secure  a  fair  basis  for  the  assurance  of  personal  salvation,  against 
the  attempts  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  involve  this  whole  matter 
in  doubt  and  uncertainty,  in  order  that  men  might  be  led  to  rest 
in  the  authority  of  the  church  as  the  only  'proof  of  it,  were  led 
into  the  error  of  making  assurance  of  personal  salvation  of  the 
essence,  and  including  it  in  their  definition,  of  saving  faith ;  so 
some  of  them  have  been  led  to  speak  of  the  necessity  of  a  divine 
testimony  as  the  basis  of  our  faith  in  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Scripture  in  a  way  that  is  not  very  easy  to  be  understood,  or  is 
somewhat  liable  to  be  abused.  The  general  idea  which  some  of 
them  seem  to  have  entertained  upon  this  point  was  this,  that  in 
order  to  have  a  right  persuasion  on  this  matter,  based  upon  a  right 
foundation,  each  man  must  be  able  to  say  that  he  has  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  Spirit  bearing  witness  to  him,  without  the  interven¬ 
tion  of  any  human  testimony,  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God. 
They  did  not  indeed  imagine  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  tell  or 
declare  this  to  them  directly  by  an  impression  produced  imme¬ 
diately  upon  their  minds.  This  was  an  abuse  of  the  principle  by 
fanatics  and  enthusiasts.  The  Reformers  generally  held  that  there 
must  be  proof  or  evidence  of  this  which  the  Holy  Spirit  enabled 
them  to  see  and  appreciate,  and  by  which  he  produced  the  con- 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


335 


viction.  But  as  they  were  anxious  to  exclude  from  the  process 
everything  that  was  merely  human,  that  depended  merely  upon 
man  and  his  testimony,  they  were  disposed  to  limit  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit  in  producing  or  elfecting  this  persuasion,  to  the  evi¬ 
dence  that  was  found  in  the  Bible  itself,  irrespective  of  anything 
we  know  concerning  its  human  authors,  or  concerning  its  composi¬ 
tion,  as  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  that  thus  there  might  be  nothing 
intermediate  between  the  Bible  itself  and  the  proof  contained  in 
it  of  its  divine  original,  when  opened  up  and  impressed  by  the 
Spirit ;  and  that  thus  it  might  be  said  that  this  persuasion  rested 
upon  the  Spirit’s  witness — i.e.  a  divine  testimony — without  the 
intervention  of  anything  human.  Some,  labouring  to  explain 
this,  and  overlooking  the  distinction  between  the  evidence  by 
which  the  truth  might  be  established  against  infidels,  and  that  by 
which  it  might  be  satisfactorily  confirmed  to  believers,  were  in 
this  way  led  unduly  to  depreciate  the  external  evidences,  even  for 
their  appropriate  purpose,  though  their  argument  did  not  at  all 
require  this,  and  likewise  to  speak  sometimes  as  if  the  Holy  Spirit 
were  not  only  the  efficient  cause  of  this  persuasion,  but  as  if  he  in 
some  way  or  other  gave  them  proof  or  evidence  of  it  by  his  agency 
apart  from  the  proof  or  evidence  which  existed  in  the  Bible  itself,  and 
in  what  they  themselves  had  experienced,  viewed  in  connection  with 
the  Scripture  as  the  instrumental,  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
efficient  cause  of  it.  The  different  distinctions  upon  this  subject  are 
indicated  and  summed  up  in  a  single  sentence  of  Bi chard  Baxter’s, 
and  a  few  remarks  upon  it  may  tend  to  elucidate  them.  It  is 
from  the  second  part  of  his  Unreasonableness  of  Infidelity  ’  .* — 

“  I  shall  not  add  here  that  immediate  witness  of  the  Spirit  within  us  which 
some  assert  is  only  sufficient,  which  is  neither  an  objective  testifying  from 
without,  nor  an  objective  testifying  by  the  aforesaid  works  of  grace  within, 
nor  an  effective  testimony  by  producing  our  belief  of  the  objective,  all  which 
I  have  asserted ;  but  is  moreover  first,  either  another  inobjective  testimony 
as  by  an  inward  word  or  enunciation  of  another  to  our  mind  ;  secondly,  or 
else  an  efficient  testifying  by  causing  us  to  believe  without  the  objective  evi¬ 
dence,  or  only  upon  this  last  supposed  internal  enunciation  of  his  own.  For 
these  enthusiasms  or  inspirations  let  them  boast  of  them  that  have  them,  but 
let  them  not  blame  me  if  I  prove  them  not  common  or  necessary  to  all ;  nay, 
if  I  prove  that  the  former  without  them  are  sufficient  testimony  within  us  of 
the  truth  of  this  doctrine.” 


^  Works  by  Orme,  vol.  xx.  p.  136. 


336 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


Now,  there  is  nothing  that  is  here  expressly  asserted  by  Baxter 
to  which  the  generality  of  the  Reformers  would  have  objected.  They 
generally  rejected  what  he  rejects,  though  their  language  was  some¬ 
times  not  altogether  free  from  ambiguity  ;  and  they  maintained  in 
substance  what  he  maintains,  though  on  one  point  they  would 
have  been  disposed  to  make  an  addition  to  it,  which  they  usually 
reckoned  of  some  importance.  What  Baxter  here  rejects  as  not 
comprehended  in  the  scriptural  view  of  the  witness  of  the  Spirit, 
is  an  inobjective  testimony,  as  by  an  inward  word  or  enunciation 
of  another  to  our  mind,  and  also  an  efficient  testifying  by  causing 
us  to  believe  without  the  objective  evidence,  or  only  upon  this  last 
supposed  enunciation  of  his  own  ;  in  other  words,  he  holds,  and 
the  Reformers  and  Protestants  in  general  agree  with  him,  that  the 
testimony  and  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  not  a  declaration  which  the 
Spirit  makes  to  us,  an  impression  which  he  produces  upon  us  irre¬ 
spective  of  any  objective  evidence  which  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  the 
truth,  though  it  might  not  have  been  seen  or  appreciated  without 
his  agency.  It  is  only  by  means  of  something  which  really  proves 
that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  whether  it  be  found  in  ourselves 
or  in  the  Bible,  or  be  adduced  from  the  ordinary  sources  of  human 
knowledge,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  in  believers  a  full  per¬ 
suasion  and  assurance  of  its  divine  origin  and  authority. 

And  what  Baxter  maintains  and  defends  upon  this  subject  is — 
1.  An  objective  testifying  by  the  Spirit  from  without;  and  by 
this  he  means  principally,  as  is  evident  from  the  general  scope  of 
his  argument,  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  authors  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  which  are  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  2.  An  objective  testifying  by  the  works  of  grace 
within ;  and  this  is  just  the  experimental  evidence  in  the  higher 
and  stricter  sense  of  it,  the  changes  which  are  wrought  upon  men’s 
hearts  and  characters,  and  which  are  not  only  accordant  with  what 
the  Scripture  tells  us  are  to  be  expected  from  the  influence  of  the 
truth,  but  are  themselves  manifestlv  traceable  to  the  doctrines  and 
statements  of  the  Bible  as  their  proximate  cause.  And  3.  An 
effective  testifying  of  the  Spirit  producing  our  belief  of  the  objec¬ 
tive,  i.e.  not  only  producing  the  materials  which  afford  proofs  or 
evidences  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  but  enabling  us 
to  see  and  appreciate  them,  and  impressing  deeply  and  powerfully 
upon  our  minds  the  conclusion  which  these  materials  are  fitted  to 


WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


337 


produce,  and  enabling  us  also  to  retain  and  apply  it.  What  the 
Reformers  generally,  and  those  who  have  defended  their  principles, 
would  object  to  in  the  statements  of  Baxter,  is  the  omission  of  the 
internal  objective  testimony,  and  more  especially  that  branch  of  it 
usually  called  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible.  He  men¬ 
tions  the  external  evidence,  especially  the  miracles  of  the  authors 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  experimental,  in 
the  changes  produced  upon  men,  as  these  may  undoubtedly  be 
called  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  since  he  produces  the  mate¬ 
rials  and  enables  us  to  apply  them  ;  but  he  says  nothing  of  the 
internal  proofs  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scripture  found  in  the 
Scripture  itself,  viewed  objectively  and  apart  from  the  changes 
which  it  is  the  instrument  in  the  Spirit’s  hand  of  effecting  upon 
believers.  Some  of  the  Reformers  would  have  objected  to  his 
comprehending  the  external  evidence  under  the  head  of  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  Spirit ;  but  in  regard  to  this  matter,  it  seems  pretty 
evident  that  in  the  sense,  and  to  the  extent  formerly  explained, 
Baxter  was  right  and  they  wrong.  We  hold  it  quite  as  evident 
that  in  omitting  the  internal  evidence  of  a  divine  origin  which  is 
found  in  the  Bible  itself,  and  which  the  Spirit  enables  believers  to 
see,  Baxter  did  not  bring  out  the  whole  truth  necessary  for 
explaining  and  unfolding  the  testimony  or  witness  of  the  Spirit.  He 
has  explained  fully  what  is  comprehended  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  under  the  expression  the  Spirit  bearing  witness  with  the 
word,  but  he  has  omitted  what,  as  we  formerly  explained  to  you, 
seems  to  have  been  intended  by  the  expression  of  his  bearing  wit- 
ners  hy  the  word.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  Baxter  has 
nowhere  denied  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Bible,  or  argued 
against  it,  though  he  seems  to  have  felt  that  it  did  not  admit  of 
being  very  clearly  and  distinctly  explained  to  those  who  had  not 
been  enabled  by  the  Spirit  to  see  and  feel  it,  and  that  therefore  it 
was  of  less  practical  importance  to  dwell  upon  it.  And  I  have  no 
doubt,  as  I  formerly  hinted,  that  it  was  this  reticence  on  Baxter’s 
part  that  Owen  referred  to  in  the  statement  contained  in  the 
passage  I  referred  to  in  his  Reason  of  Faith,  when  he  says — 
Some,  I  confess,  speak  suspiciously  hereon,  but  until  they  will 
directly  deny  it,  I  shall  not  need  further  to  confirm  it.”  It  is 
deserving  also  of  remark  that  Baxter,  immediately  after  the 

Y 


338 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


quotation  above  given  from  him,  refers  for  a  fuller  explanation  of  his 
views  to  a  work  of  Barmens  against  Spalatensis,  and  to  Amyraldus 
in  the  Theses  Salmurienses,  and  that  Amyraldus  (for  Barmens  I 
have  not  seen)  is  very  full  and  explicit,  when  treating  of  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  Scripture  and  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  in  maintaining  the 
validity  and  sufficiency  of  the  internal  proofs  found  in  the  Bible 
itself  of  its  divine  origin.  Indeed,  he  lays  down  as  his  two  funda¬ 
mental  propositions  upon  that  subject — ''  Non  aliunde  certe  et 
indubitate  sciri  posse  scripturam  esse  divinam,  quam  ex  ipsa  scrip- 
tura and  second,  “  Ex  scriptura  ipsa  certissime  sciri  posse  earn 
esse  divinitus  traditam  hominibus.” 

These,  and  especially  the  second,  viz.,  that  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  can  be  fully  established  from  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  itself,  from  what  is  actually  contained  and  found  there,  though 
men  may  not  be  able  to  discern  it  fully  until  the  Spirit  opens  their 
eyes,  were  the  great  truths  upon  this  subject  which  the  Beformers 
were  anxious  to  establish,  and  which  they  held  to  be  of  great  import¬ 
ance  in  their  controversy  with  the  Papists.  They  thought  that  by 
establishing  the  proposition  that  the  Scripture  evidenced  itself  to  be 
the  word  of  God,  they  secured  two  important  objects — first,  that 
they  could  thus  shew  how  men’s  faith  in  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  rested  wholly  upon  a  divine  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  a  human  testimony,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  thus 
produced  this  persuasion  in  their  minds,  using  as  his  medium  or 
instrument  in  producing  it  only  what  was  his  own  work,  viz.,  the 
Bible  itself,  and  that  thus  nothing  depending  upon  the  mere 
testimony  of  men  came  in  to  lower  the  character  of  their  faith  as 
divine  and  supernatural ;  and  second,  what  was  perhaps  a  matter 
of  greater  real  importance,  that  they  could  thus  explain  fully 
what  was  called  the  resolution  of  faith,  or  the  investigation  of 
this  question.  What  is  the  ultimate  basis  or  foundation,  or  first 
principle,  into  which  men’s  faith  in  the  divine  origin  and  authority 
of  the  Bible  resolves  itself  ? 

This  was  a  question  much  discussed  between  the  Church  of 
Home  and  the  Reformers,  and  it  is  still  often  brought  forward  as 
an  important  article  in  the  Popish  controversy.  Though  the 
Papists  boast  much  of  the  certainty  and  security  of  their  mode  of 
resolving  faith,  yet  they  really  leave  men’s  faith  without  any  firm 
and  certain  basis,  or  first  principle,  to  rest  upon.  When  you  ask 


RESOLUTION  OF  FAITH. 


339 


a  Papist,  Why  do  you  believe  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word  of 
God  ?  his  answer  is,  because  the  church,  which  is  infallible,  assures 
me  it  is ;  and  if  you  ask,  Why  do  you  believe  the  church 
to  be  infallible  ?  they  usually  answer,  because  the  Scripture 
declares  it  to  be  so ;  and  thus  they  prove  the  Scripture  by  the 
church,  and  the  church  by  the  Scripture,  and  so  go  round  in  a 
vicious  circle,  as  logicians  call  it,  without  ever  making  any  progress 
in  the  argument,  just  because  they  have  not  any  one  distinct  and 
independent  point  from  which  to  start,  any  one  fixed  principle 
on  which  they  can  rest  their  foot.  They  have  made  very  ingenious 
attempts  to  escape  from  this  charge  of  reasoning  in  a  circle  on 
the  resolution  of  faith,  but  without  success ;  thus,  even  if  we  were 
to  concede  to  them  that  the  Scripture  did  establish,  in  place  of 
overturning,  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  as  it  assuredly  does  in 
their  sense  of  the  words,  we  could  still  prove  that,  in  explaining 
what  their  faith  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scripture  is  resolved 
into,  they  have  no  clear,  independent,  and  well  established  ground 
to  stand  on.  It  was  the  discussion  of  this  subject  of  the  resolution 
of  faith  that  chiefly  led  the  Reformers  to  attach  so  much  import¬ 
ance  to  the  establishment  of  the  position  that  the  Scripture  proves 
itself ;  that  it  is  avTo^itsrog ;  that  it  may  be  proved  to  come  from 
God  from  what  is  contained  in  itself,  without  necessarily  requiring 
argumentative  support  from  any  other  quarter ;  and  that  thus  it  is 
a  first  principle,  which,  being  fully  established  by  its  own  proper 
and  independent  evidence,  becomes  the  rightful  basis  of  all  subse¬ 
quent  discussion.  When  the  Papists,  in  dealing  with  this  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  resolution  of  faith,  alleged  that  they  could  not  see  any 
such  self-evidencing  power  about  the  Bible,  and  that  they  were  not 
bound  to  admit  it,  the  Reformers  contended  that  it  was  there 
objectively,  though  it  could  not  be  seen  fully  and  appreciated, 
except  by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  as  the  question 
under  discussion  was  not  as  to  the  way  of  establishing  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  against  men  who  openly 
deny  it,  but  as  to  how  believers  may  be  satisfied  and  assured  in 
their  own  minds, — though,  as  I  have  said,  this  distinction  was  not 
always  very  carefully  attended  to  in  the  course  of  the  controversy 
on  either  side, — the  answer  was  sufficient  and  satisfactory,  provided 
due  care  was  taken  in  the  explanation  of  the  matter  to  distinguish 
between  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  enabling  men  to  see 


340 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


the  evidence,  and  in  producing,  by  means  of  the  evidence  in  the 
Bible  itself,  a  full  persuasion  and  assurance  in  their  minds  on  the 
one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  any  such  supposed  agency  as  implied 
that  he,  apart  from  the  word  itself  and  the  evidence  existing  in  it, 
produced  or  furnished  the  reasons  or  considerations  on  account  of 
which  they  believed  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God. 

Some  of  the  defenders  of  the  Reformation  did  not  always  keep 
in  view  this  distinction  between  what  Baxter  calls  the  effective 
and  the  objective  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  and  thus  afforded  some 
plausible  grounds  to  the  Papists  for  retorting  the  charge  of  reason¬ 
ing  in  a  circle,  in  this  way ;  by  alleging  that  Protestants  proved 
the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  by  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit, 
and  then  proved  that  it  is  indeed  the  Holy  Spirit  whose  testimony 
they  have,  by  the  means  which  the  Scripture  affords  for  deter¬ 
mining  what  is  the  Spirit’s  testimony.  There  would  be  some 
ground  for  this  allegation  if  Protestants  brought  in  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  as  occupying  the  same  place  which  Papists  assign  to 
the  testimony  of  the  church,  viz.,  as  being  the  reason  or  motive 
on  account  of  which  they  believe  the  Scripture  to  be  the  word  of 
God.  But  when  they  adhere  to  the  great  principle  that  the 
reasons  or  motives  on  account  of  which  they  believe  exist,  and 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Scripture  itself,  and  maintain  only  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  efficient  cause  through  whose  agency  they  are 
enabled  to  discern  this  evidence,  and  to  attain  to  a  full  persuasion 
of  its  validity,  the  vicious  circle  is  entirely  avoided ;  a  firm  and 
distinct  first  principle  is  settled  in  the  avro<^iCTia  of  the  Bible 
itself,  while  provision  is  at  the  same  time  made  for  the  produc¬ 
tion  and  the  explanation  of  that  full  persuasion  and  assurance 
of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
which,  in  the  language  of  our  Confession,  results  from  the  inward 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in 
our  hearts.  This  is  a  somewhat  intricate  subject,  and  perhaps,  in 
order  to  its  complete  elucidation,  would  require  a  fuller  discussion 
than  our  limits  permit  us  to  give  to  it.  I  have  adverted  to  it 
chiefly  because  it  was  naturally  suggested  by  the  explanation  of 
the  import  and  the  reference  of  the  important  statements  upon 
this  subject  contained  in  the  Confession,  and  because  the  explana¬ 
tions  which  have  been  given,  brief  and  imperfect  as  they  are,  may 
perhaps  afford  you  some  assistance  in  understanding  the  references 


LITERATURE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


341 


to  it  which  you  may  meet  with  in  the  course  of  your  studies.  If 
you  wish  to  examine  the  subject  more  fully,  you  will  find  abundant 
materials  in  the  work  formerly  quoted,  as  referred  to  by  Baxter, 
Syntagma  Thesium  Theologicaruw.  in  academia  Salmuriensi  dis- 
20utataTum,  commonlj  known  by  the  name  of  Theses  Salmuriensesy 
under  the  head  De  Authoritate  Sacrce  Scrivturce.  It  is  a  valuable 
work,  containing  a  collection  of  dissertations  upon  a  great  variety 
of  subjects,  by  the  three  professors  of  the  Protestant  University  of 
Saumur — Capellus,  Amyraldus,  and  Placseus.  It  exhibits  how¬ 
ever,  I  must  warn  you,  in  substance  that  system  of  theology  which 
Baxter  himself  advocated,  and  which  is  sometimes  known  in  this 
country  by  the  name  of  Baxterianism,  which  is  an  awkward 
attempt  to  find  a  solid  resting-place  somewhere  between  Calvin¬ 
ism  and  Arminianism,  and  which,  beginning  usually  in  some 
vague  notion  of  a  general  atonement,  which  is  in  reality  no  atone¬ 
ment,  of  a  universal  redemption,  which  is  in  reality  no  redemption, 
has  too  often  led  men  at  length  to  an  open  denial  of  God’s  sove¬ 
reignty  in  the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  to  an  assertion  of  the 
natural  power  of  men  to  repent  and  believe  and  come  to  Christ. 

A  still  better  discussion  of  this  subject  than  that  which  Amy¬ 
raldus  has  given  in  the  Theses  Salmurienses,  you  will  find  in 
Turretine,  in  the  second  book  of  his  System,  under  the  head  De 
ScriptuTce  Sacrce  auctoritate  ;  in  two  separate  dissertations  upon 
the  same  subject  in  the  fifth  volume  of  his  works ;  and  in  a 
treatise,  De  Circulo  Pontijicio,  in  his  fourth  volume.  In  the  two 
separate  dissertations  he  discusses  fully  the  respective  provinces 
and  functions  of  the  church,  the  Scripture  itself,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  proving  and  establishing  the  divine  origin  and  authority 
of  the  Bible ;  and  in  the  other,  De  Circulo  Pontijicio,  he  fully 
establishes  against  the  Popish  mode  of  resolving  faith  the  charge  of 
a  vicious  circulation  of  the  argument,  and  defends  the  Protestant 
doctrine  against  the  Popish  attempt  to  retort  this  charge ;  admitting, 
however,  that  some  Protestant  writers  have  spoken  incautiously 
upon  that  point,  so  as  to  afford  some  plausible  grounds  for  the 
allegation,  by  merely  substituting  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  for 
that  of  the  church,  as  if  they  were  causes  of  the  same  kind,  and 
were  both  equally  alleged  by  their  respective  supporters  as  the 
reason,  consideration,  or  motive  on  account  of  which  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scripture  is  believed. 


342 


TWENTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


The  principal  writers  of  our  own  country  upon  this  subject, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  is  mixed  up  with  the  Popish  controversy,  are 
those  who  have  been  already  so  often  referred  to,  and  whose 
merits  and  defects  I  have  already  had  occasion  in  some  measure 
to  point  out — Baxter,  Owen,  and  Halyburton.  Owen  and  Haly- 
hurton  are  directed  not  so  much  against  the  Church  of  Eome, 
although  they  contain  materials  which  may  he  of  use  also  in  the 
Popish  controversy,  but  rather  against  those  rationalists,  as 
Halyburton  calls  them,  who  deny  that  the  Bible  contains  within 
itself  proof  or  evidence  of  its  divine  origin,  and  that  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  to  produce  a  thorough  and  efficacious 
persuasion  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  Halyburton’s  book  contains 
much  most  valuable  matter,  but  he  has  not  succeeded  completely 
in  bringing  out  very  clearly  the  real  error  and  evil  of  the  views 
contained  in  those  chapters  in  Locke’s  Essay,  upon  which  he  chiefly 
animadverts,  and  he  has  certainly  made  some  statements  which 
go  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  which  require  to  be  modified  by 
those  important  principles  which  Dr  Chalmers  has  illustrated  as 
to  the  spiritual  evidences  not  in  any  way  superseding  or  impair¬ 
ing  the  rational,  and  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  rational  evidences, 
for  their  own  appropriate  end  and  object,  and  especially  for 
imposing  upon  men  obligations  which,  if  rightly  felt  and  discharged, 
would  assuredly  lead  to  much  higher  attainments  in  the  strength 
and  efficacy  of  their  faith,  as  well  as  in  the  extent  of  their  know¬ 
ledge  and  the  elevation  of  their  motives. 


LECTURE  XXVII. 


PLENAKY  VERBAL  INSPIRATION  :  ITS  GENERAL  NATURE, 

IMPORT,  AND  GROUNDS. 

i 

WE  formerly  considered  the  subject  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture ;  and  the  proofs,  external 
and  internal,  by  which  it  may  be  established.  In  doing  so,  we 
assumed  that  it  had  been  proved  that  Jesus  was  a  teacher  sent 
from  God,  and  that  the  apostles  whom  he  sent  forth  were  commis¬ 
sioned  and  qualified  to  reveal  God’s  will  to  men ;  and  also  that 
the  writings  of  these  apostles  have  come  down  to  us  in  substantial 
integrity,  so  as  to  convey  to  us  a  correct  account  of  what  they  pro¬ 
claimed  to  men  as  God’s  will  revealed  to  them.  Upon  the  ground 
of  these  truths  proved,  we  are  of  course  bound  to  believe  whatever 
they  have  declared  to  us  as  coming  from  God,  and  whatever  they 
have  made  known  to  us  as  to  God’s  revelation  to  them,  the  com¬ 
mission  they  received,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  executed  it. 
With  these  materials,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  proving  that  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  as  well  as  their  public  instructions,  v/ere 
composed  under  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so 
that  a  divine  origin  and  divine  authority  may  be  justly  ascribed  to 
them;  and  then  upon  the  ground  of  the  testimony  of  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles,  were  there  no  other  proof,  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament  would  be  fully  established.  We 
shewed  you  that  under  the  general  head  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  was  comprehended  a  consider¬ 
able  variety  of  opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  God’s  agency 
in  the  production  of  them,  and  the  consequent  character  of  the 
resulting  product.  Some  who  profess  to  hold  the  divine  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Bible,  admitting  the  supernatural  agency  of 


344 


TWENTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


God  only  partially  even  as  to  the  matter  of  the  Scripture,  confin¬ 
ing  it  to  what  they  think  fitted  to  convey  instruction  on  subjects 
of  religion  and  morality;  and  others  extending  it  to  all  the  matter 
contained  in  Scripture,  but  admitting  it  only  partially  in  regard 
to  the  language.  We  explained  to  you  something  of  the  general 
grounds  on  which  these  partial  and  defective  views  of  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Scripture  rested,  and  by  which  they 
were  commonly  defended,  and  pointed  out  the  unreasonableness 
and  presumption  of  the  process  of  argument  by  which  such  conclu¬ 
sions  had  been  generally  reached,  viz.,  by  laying  down  the  principle, 
that  no  more  of  divine  agency  was  to  be  admitted  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  the  Bible  than  was  absolutely  necessary,  and  then  with 
this  principle  going  over  the  Bible  and  marking  off  what  parts  of 
it,  or  what  classes  of  subjects  treated  of,  required  supernatural 
divine  agency,  and  distinguishing  also,  according  to  their  own 
views  of  the  necessity  of  the  case,  what  kind  and  degree  of  divine 
agency  was  required  in  order  to  the  production  of  the  different 
parts  of  the  Bible.  We  shewed  you  also  that  the  arguments  by 
which  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  general 
truth  may  be  established,  proved,  if  they  proved  anything,  a 
larger  amount  of  divine  agency  to  have  been  exerted  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  them  than  most  of  these  theories  would  admit  of;  and 
we  adverted  to  the  important  consideration  that  we  have  no  indi¬ 
cation  whatever,  in  any  of  the  statements  of  Scripture  itself,  of  ^ 
there  having  been  different  kinds  or  degrees  of  inspiration  em¬ 
ployed  in  producing  it.  We  intimated  our  opinion  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  plenary  or  verbal  inspiration  of  the  whole  Bible 
was  true,  and  might  be  successfully  defended ;  and  distinguishing 
between  this  subject  and  the  more  extensive  and  general  one  of 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  we  proposed  to 
consider  this  under  the  head  of  inspiration,  as  being  that  which 
alone  seemed  fully  worthy  of  the  name.  So  that  practically  the 
question  which  now  lies  before  us  for  consideration  amounts  in 
substance  to  this,  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  or  that  view  of  the  divine  origin  and 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  which  approaches  nearest  to  it,  which 
stands  next  to  it  as  to  the  kind  and  degree  of  divine  agency 
exerted  in  the  production  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  be  the  true 
one.  Many  of  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  verbal  inspiration  of 


PLENARY  VERBAL  INSPIRATION. 


345 


the  whole  Scriptures,  have  professed  to  maiutain  what  they  have 
called  its  complete  and  plenary  inspiration.  We  think  that  in 
fairness  the  word  plenary  should  be  reserved  for  the  view  which 
asserts  the  entire  verbal  inspiration ;  but  it  is  certain  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  some  who  have  rejected  the  verbal  have  yet  professed 
to  maintain  the  plenary,  while  others  of  them  with  greater  accuracy 
and  candour  have  claimed  credit  only  for  maintaining  the  complete 
inspiration.  Those  who  profess  to  maintain  the  plenary  or  com¬ 
plete,  while  they  deny  the  entire  verbal  inspiration,  entertain  views 
upon  the  subject  of  this  sort.  They  think  that  the  authors  of 
the  different  books  of  Scripture  had  as  much  of  divine  guidance 
and  assistance  as  the  necessity  of  the  case  required  ;  that  the  same 
degree  of  divine  agency  was  not  always  necessary,  and  therefore  was 
not  given ;  that  there  were  different  kinds  or  degrees  of  inspira¬ 
tion  employed  in  the  production  of  the  different  parts  of  Scripture, 
and  more  especially  two,  viz. — first,  what  they  call  the  inspiration  of 
superintendence,  when  the  Holy  Spirit,  leaving  the  authors  gener¬ 
ally  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  and  the  use  and  applica¬ 
tion  of  their  own  knowledge  for  the  words  they  ought  to  employ, 
merely  watched  over  them  to  guard  against  error;  and  second,  the 
inspiration  of  suggestion,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  not  only  revealed 
to  them  the  matter  or  the  thoughts,  but  also  suggested  or  dictated 
to  them  the  words  in  which  it  was  to  be  conveyed.  When  men 
thus  admit  that  the  whole  Scripture  was  superintended  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  so  as  to  have  been  preserved  from  all  error,  while 
some  part  of  it  was  suggested  or  dictated  by  him,  they  not  very 
unnaturally  allege  and  attempt  to  shew,  that  this  is  all  that  is 
necessary  for  leading  us  to  regard  it  as  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
submit  implicitly  to  the  authority  of  its  statements,  as  an  infallible 
rule  or  standard,  and  that  thus  there  is  no  material  practical 
diff’erence  between  their  views  and  that  of  the  entire  verbal 
inspiration  of  Scripture,  while  their  theory  they  allege  escapes 
some  of  the  difficulties  to  which  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration 
is  exposed.  It  is  true  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  between 
a  doctrine  of  this  sort  and  that  which  denies  verbal  inspiration 
as  attaching  to  any  part  of  Scripture,  and  Avhich  admits 
inspiration  in  any  sense,  or  supernatural  divine  assistance,  only  in 
regard  to  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  not  the  whole,  only  in  regard  to 
some  classes  of  the  subjects  of  which  the  Bible  treats,  and  not  them 


346 


TWENTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


all.  And  it  is  true  also  that  some  of  those  who,  while  advocating 
these  views,  have  denied  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
have  spoken  of  the  entire  freedom  of  the  Bible  from  all  error  or 
mistake,  and  of  the  accuracy  and  correctness  which  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  secured  in  some  way  or  other  to  all  its  statements, 
so  as  to  make  their  doctrine  as  to  the  perfection  and  authority  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  respect  and  reverence  due  to  all  that  is  con¬ 
tained  in  it,  substantially  and  practically  identical,  if  fairly  followed 
out  and  applied,  with  that  which  asserts  their  verbal  inspiration. 
The  question  as  between  these  two  doctrines  cannot  indeed  be 
said  to  be  one  of  vital  or  essential  importance.  And  yet  even 
independently  of  the  decision  of  the  question  which  ought  to 
settle  the  point,  viz.,  which  of  these  doctrines  is  true,  wBich  is 
supported  by  the  best  evidence,  experience  seems  to  indicate  that 
there  is  something  injurious  or  dangerous  in  any  view  which  comes 
short  of  maintaining  the  verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture.  For 
many  of  those  who  have  opposed  this  doctrine  have  failed  in  fol¬ 
lowing  fully  out  even  their  own  principle,  and  have  shewn  some 
disposition  to  tamper  with  the  reverence  due  to  what  is  the  word 
of  God.  And  indeed  it  is  manifest  that  there  must  be  some  diffi¬ 
culty  in  preserving  a  frame  of  mind  pervaded  by  dne  reverence  for 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  unless  it  be  based  upon  a  conviction  that  it  is  all 
traceable  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  impression  that 
it  is  all  traceable  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  it  really 
is  the  word  of  God,  and  not  merely  the  word  of  man,  must  be  vague, 
faint,  and  ineffective,  unless  it  be  based  upon  a  distinct  conviction 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  not  merely  superintended  the  writers  so  as  to 
preserve  them  from  error,  but  suggested  to  them  the  words  in 
which  the  matter  he  communicated  to  them  was  to  be  conveyed. 
Still  I  would  not  have  you  to  cherish  an  exaggerated  sense  of  the 
importance  of  the  special  point  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration 
of  the  whole  Scripture.  In  some  discussions  which  took  place  in 
this  country  a  few  years  ago  upon  this  subject  of  inspiration,  while 
the  opponents  of  verbal  inspiration  in  general  manifested  great 
unsoundness  of  principle  and  great  looseness  of  sentiment,  the 
defenders,  and  especially  Mr  B.  Haldane  and  Mr  Carson,  while 
carrying  off  a  most  clear  and  decisive  victory  in  argument,  perhaps 
overrated  the  importance  of  the  precise  point  in  dispute.  The 
notion  of  what  is  commonly  called  partial  inspiration,  which  ascribes 


PLENARY  VERBAL  INSPIRATION 


347 


inspiration  only  to  some  part  of  the  Bible,  and  not  to  all,  or  only 
to  what  men  in  their  wisdom  are  pleased  to  regard  as  conveying 
instruction  in  matters  of  religion  and  morality,  is  most  injurious 
and  dangerous,  for  it  virtually  deprives  the  Bible  of  all  real  autho¬ 
rity  as  a  rule  or  standard  of  faith,  and  leaves  men  at  liberty  to 
exercise  their  own  judgment  at  discretion  upon  all  the  statements 
it  contains;  and  as  the  notion  was  most  probably  adopted  just  for 
the  very  purpose  of  securing  this  liberty,  the  privilege  is  pretty 
certain  to  be  abused.  But  when  men  assure  us  that  they  believe 
that  the  whole  Bible  is  traceable  more  or  IcvSS  directly  to  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  has  been  all  composed  under  such 
control  on  his  part  as  to  be  entirely  free  from  all  error  or  mistake, 
and  thus  to  be  an  infallible  rule  or  standard,  whose  meaning  is  to 
be  humbly,  dilligently,  and  prayerfully  ascertained,  and  then  to  be 
implicitly  received  and  obeyed,  and  when  they  give  any  fair 
evidence  of  honestly  and  faithfully  following  out  this  conviction  in 
practice,  we  have  no  right  to  put  them  in  the  same  category  as 
those  who,  in  the  sense  above  described,  admit  only  a  partial 
inspiration,  or  to  represent  their  opinions  as  characterised  by  the 
same  injurious  tendency,  merely  because  they  see  some  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  asserting  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  When  the  dispute  is  narrowed  to  this  point,  the  con¬ 
siderations  of  a  general  kind  which  bear  upon  the  settlement  of 
it  are  neither  so  numerous  nor  so  weighty  as  when,  in  contending 
with  the  Socinians,  the  controversy  is  between  inspiration  and 
no  inspiration,  or,  as  when  contending  with  men  whose  opinions 
are  not  so  erroneous  as  those  of  the  Socinians,  the  controversy  is 
between  partial  and  complete  inspiration. 

Still  there  are  not  wanting  some  general  considerations  which 
afford  something  of  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
plenary  verbal  inspiration.  Verbal  inspiration  is  that  which  we 
would  wish  for  and  desire  to  have  in  any  writing  which  was  to  be 
the  rule  and  standard  of  our  faith,  and  on  the  precise  meaning 
of  which,  as  ascertained  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  words 
of  which  it  was  composed,  such  infinitely  important  consequences 
were  suspended.  We  all  feel  that  this  would  produce  much 
greater  reverence  in  our  minds  in  the  study  of  the  writing,  and 
would  tend  to  invest  its  statements  with  a  higher  and  more 
commanding  authority.  We  are  not  entitled  to  pronounce 


348 


TWENTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


dogmatically  beforehand  either  that  it  was  or  was  not  necessary 
for  effecting  the  ends  which  the  Bible  was  intended  to  serve. 
But  we  can  see,  and  we  are  entitled  to  assert,  that  some  important 
practical  purposes  would  be  accomplished  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
having  suggested  the  words  as  well  as  the  matter  of  the  whole 
Bible,  and  making  known  to  us  that  this  had  been  done.  And 
this  consideration  affords  at  least  as  strong  a  presumption  in 
favour  of  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  as  its  alleged  non¬ 
necessity  does  against  it.  And  even  if  we  were  to  admit  this 
principle,  that  we  are  to  acknowledge  in  the  production  of  the 
Bible  only  the  smallest  amount  of  divine  supernatural  agency 
that  was  necessary  in  order  to  make  it  free  from  error  and 
universally  correct,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  or  certain  that  the 
application  of  this  test  would  exclude  the  doctrine  of  verbal 
inspiration.  Upon  the  supposition  of  verbal  inspiration  through¬ 
out,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  regarded  as  taking  possession,  as  it  were, 
of  the  man  for  a  time,  pervading  all  his  powers  and  faculties,  and 
employing  him  with  all  his  powers  and  faculties  in  exercise,  and 
without  preventing  or  superseding  their  ordinary  and  accustomed 
operation  in  producing  a  portion  of  what  was  to  be  received  and 
handed  down  as  the  word  of  God,  fitted  and  intended  to  make 
men  wise  unto  salvation.  Whereas  upon  the  theory  which  denies 
plenary  verbal  inspiration  to  any  portion  of  Scripture,  the  state 
of  the  case  must  have  been  this,  that  while  in  regard  to  some 
portions  of  Scripture,  where  verbal  inspiration  was  necessary,  the 
Spirit  must  have  acted  as  above  described  ;  in  regard  to  many 
other  portions,  some  of  them,  these  men  would  probably  say, 
found  more  or  less  in  every  book  of  Scripture,  He  only  stood 
by,  watching  the  proceedings  of  the  author  whom  he  was  super¬ 
intending,  ready  at  any  moment  to  interfere  when  the  author 
was  about  to  fall  into  any  mistake,  either  in  his  sentiments  or 
in  his  words,  and  actually  interfering  to  prevent  anything  of  this 
sort  just  at  the  moment  when  it  was  about,  but  for  his  super¬ 
natural  interposition,  to  have  occurred.  This  is  a  perfectly  fair 
representation  of  the  place  assigned  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
production  of  the  Bible,  by  the  theory  which  denies  a  plenary 
verbal  inspiration,  and  , ascribes  the  composition  of  the  Scriptures 
partly  to  the  inspiration  of  suggestion,  and  partly  to  the  inspiration 
of  superintendence.  It  is  easy  to  see  which  doctrine  tends  most 


PLENARY  VERBAL  LNSPIRATLON 


349 


to  promote  worthy  and  exalted  conceptions  of  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  this  matter ;  it  is  not  easy  to  say  which  implies  the 
larger  amount  of  supernatural  divine  agency  in  the  production 
of  the  books  of  Scripture,  while  it  seems  pretty  plain  that  the 
inspiration  of  suggestion,  or  a  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  really 
implies  less  of  supernatural  crossing  and  interference  with  the 
ordinary  exercise  of  all  men’s  powers  and  faculties,  than  the 
inspiration  of  superintendence,  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  against 
any  error.  But,  after  all,  the  question  under  consideration  is  one 
of  fact,  and  must  be  decided  by  the  appropriate  evidence  appli¬ 
cable  to  it  as  such  ;  and  the  only  sources  from  which  we  can  get 
any  authentic  information  upon  the  point  are,  either  the  state¬ 
ments  of  Scripture,  if  there  are  such,  bearing  directly  upon  this 
topic,  or  the  Scripture  viewed  as  a  whole,  and  by  its  general 
character  and  complexion,  as  well  as  by  its  specific  features, 
indicating  something  concerning  its  origin  and  composition.  The 
first  of  these  sources  is  much  the  most  satisfactory  and  authori¬ 
tative,  because  as  the  divine  commission  of  the  authors  of  the 
books  of  Scripture,  and  even  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  all  its 
statements,  are  admitted  by  those  with  whom  we  are  at  present 
arguing,  its  authority  must  be  conclusive  upon  the  question,  if  it 
has  indeed  afforded  any  materials  for  deciding  it ;  while  mere 
inferences  from  the  general  characteristics  of  Scripture  must  be 
liable  to  great  uncertainty. 

Before  proceeding  however  to  consider  what  materials  there  are 
in  Scripture  for  deciding  this  question,  we  must  explain  somewhat 
more  fully  what  we  mean  by  the  entire  verbal  inspiration  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  what  it  is  that  we  really  mean  to  maintain  and  defend. 
The  verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture  implies  in  general  that  the  words 
of  Scripture  were  suggested  or  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well 
as  the  substance  or  the  matter,  and  this  not  only  in  some  portions 
of  Scripture,  but  through  the  whole ;  not  only  when  it  communi¬ 
cates  to  us  information  about  matters  which  the  human  authors 
of  the  books  could  not  have  known  at  all  without  a  supernatural 
divine  revelation,  but  also  when  it  tells  us  of  matters  of  which 
they  might  have  acquired  some  knowledge,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
natural  faculties,  and  in  the  improvement  of  their  ordinary  oppor¬ 
tunities  ;  not  only  in  those  portions  which  may  appear  to  treat 
more  directly  and  formally  of  religious  and  moral  subjects,  but  in 


350 


T]YENTY-SEVENTII  lecture. 


all,  even  the  historical  narratives.  We  have,  however,  two  or  three 
observations  to  make  in  illustration  of  the  meaning  and  import 
of  this  position,  before  we  proceed  to  advert  to  the  scriptural 
evidence  on  which  it  is  based. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  does  not  by 
any  means  imply  that  everything  stated  in  Scripture  proceeded 
from  the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  are 
some  things  recorded  in  Scripture,  especially  speeches  and  letters, 
which  were  not  themselves  the  result  of  any  supernatural  agency. 
The  doctrine  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration  implies  that  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Scripture,  where  they  are  recorded,  was 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  record  them,  and  that  under  this 
divine  guidance  he  has  recorded  them  correctly.  Whether  the 
sayings  or  speeches  and  letters  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  were 
themselves  inspired  or  not,  must  be  decided  by  evidence  derived 
from  some  other  source  than  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  recorded 
there,  even  though  it  be  believed  that  the  recording  of  them  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit.  We  have  the  sayings 
of  bad  as  well  as  good  men  recorded  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  and 
even  in  regard  to  the  sayings  of  good  men  recorded  there,  we  are 
by  no  means  shut  up  to  the  conclusion  that  because  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  recorded  them,  therefore  he  originally  inspired  them. 
The  truth  is  that,  in  regard  to  the  sayings  of  good  men  recorded 
in  Scripture,  we  must  judge  of  them  upon  the  same  principles  by 
which  we  judge  of  their  actions,  endeavouring  to  ascertain,  from 
the  general  principles  set  forth  in  Scripture,  and  from  the  particu¬ 
lar  circumstances  of  the  case,  whether  or  not  they  were  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  and  said  or  done  under  the 
immediate  guidance  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  certain,  for  example,  that 
some  of  the  statements  of  Job  and  of  his  friends  in  their  confer¬ 
ence  with  him  were  erroneous,  and  indicated  a  wrong  state  of 
mind  and  feeling.  We  know  this  from  the  express  declaration  of 
-  God  himself,  and  we  cannot  therefore  ascribe  them  all  to  the 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  although  it  may  nevertheless  be  true 
that  he  has  correctly  recorded  them,  and  has  done  so  for  our 
instruction,  and  in  order  that  we  may  derive  from  them  some 
benefit.  If  Paul  had  been  guided  to  record  what  Peter  probably 
said  to  him  in  defence  or  in  palliation  of  his  conduct,  when  Paul 
withstood  him  to  the  face  because  he  was  to  be  blamed,  this 


EXPLANATIONS. 


351 


would  have  had  no  more  right  to  be  regarded  as  inspired,  and 
should  no  more  have  been  traced  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  than 
the  conduct  itself,  which  we  know  to  have  been  wrong.  There 
may  be  some  cases  in  which  it  may  not  be  easy  to  determine 
with  certainty  whether  sayings  and  speeches  recorded  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  were  free  from  all  error  in  fact  or  in  sentiment.  But  this  is 
nothing  more  than  is  exhibited  in  regard  to  some  of  the  actions 
of  good  men  recorded  there.  Some  persons,  for  example,  have 
been  disposed  to  defend  as  unobjectionable  the  conduct  of  Abraham 
in  saying  that  Sarah  was  his  sister,  because  there  was  a  sense  in 
which,  according  to  a  then  prevalent  mode  of  speaking,  it  was 
true  ;  while  most  commentators  have  condemned  it  as  intended  to 
deceive,  and  therefore  inconsistent  with  the  plain  rules  of  duty 
which  the  word  of  God  contains.  There  has  been  a  difference  of 
opinion  among  commentators  as  to  the  warrantableness  aud  the 
innocency  of  Paul’s  conduct  recorded  in  Acts  xxiii.  6,  7,  some 
holding  that  it  lay  within  the  limits  of  legitimate  prudence  and 
dexterity,  and  others  that  it  did  not,  but  partook  somewhat  of  the 
character  of  an  equivocal  artifice.  The  inspiration  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  is  not  affected  by  these  doubts  or  difficulties  about  some  of 
the  actions  of  good  men  recorded  there,  and  neither  is  it  affected 
by  similar  doubts  or  difficulties  in  regard  to  some  of  their  sayings 
or  speeches,  which  are  also  recorded  without  any  very  certain  inti¬ 
mation  being  in  all  cases  given  to  us  as  to  whether  the  sayings 
and  speeches  were  themselves  suggested  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
in  all  respects  accordant  with  God’s  will.  One  of  the  most 
important  of  the  cases  to  which  this  difficulty  has  been  applied  is 
the  case  of  the  speech  of  Stephen,  recorded  in  the  seventh  chapter 
of  the  Acts.  Some  statements  occurring  in  this  speech,  which  are 
at  variance  with  the  fuller  narrative  of  the  same  events  contained  in 
the  books  of  Moses,  have  led  some  commentators  to  suggest,  as  the 
best  way  of  getting  over  the  difficulty,  that  we  are  not  bound  to 
admit  that  this  speech,  though  recorded  by  the  Spirit  for  our 
instruction,  was  originally  dictated  or  inspired  by  him,  and  that 
therefore  Stephen  may  have  fallen  into  some  historical  mistakes. 
But  it  seems  very  plain  from  the  whole  narrative  that  the  speech 
was  inspired,  and  that  therefore  some  other  means  must  be  taken 
of  reconciling  the  discrepancies,  which  indeed  can  without  any 
great  difficulty  be  explained.  Some  of  the  opponents  of  plenary 


352 


TWENTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


inspiration  have  represented  it  as  implying  the  truth  of  this  pro¬ 
position,  and  as  indeed  resolvable  into  it,  “  that  whatever  is 
contained  in  the  Bible  is  religion,  and  was  revealed  by  God;” 
and  some  currency  has  been  given  of  late  to  this  misrepresenta¬ 
tion  among  a  certain  class,  in  consequence  of  its  having  been 
brought  forward  and  urged  by  Coleridge  in  his  Confessions.  It 
is  however  a  very  gross  and  palpable  misrepresentation.  No 
advocate  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration  ever  maintained  that  what¬ 
ever  is  contained  in  the  Bible  is  religion,  and  was  revealed  by 
God.  No  man  can  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration 
requires  them  in  consistency  to  maintain  this  or  anything  like  it ; 
and  indeed  the  distinction  above  explained  upon  this  point  is  so 
plain  as  at  once,  when  merely  stated,  to  commend  itself  to  every 
man’s  understanding. 

2.  We  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  when  we  maintain  that 
the  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  dictated  throughout  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  this  does  not  imply,  and  is  not 
understood  as  implying,  that  it  is  not  also  the  word  of  man. 
Every  one  of  the  books  which  compose  the  Bible  had  a  human 
author,  who  composed  it,  and  who  in  composing  it  exercised  his 
ordinary  natural  powers  and  faculties.  We  know  this  as  a  matter 
of  historical  fact,  proved  by  the  usual  appropriate  evidence,  and 
we  know  it  from  what  appears  plainly  and  palpably  upon  the  dace 
of  the  Scripture  itself.  It  has  never  been  denied  that  the  writ¬ 
ings  which  compose  the  Scriptures  are  characterised  by  the  obvious 
individual  peculiarities  of  their  authors  in  point  of  style,  expres¬ 
sion,  and  manner.  There  is  an  obvious  diversity  of  style  in  the 
different  hooks  which  compose  the  Bible,  just  as  there  is  in  the 
writings  of  other  authors  who  had  no  divine  assistance,  no  super¬ 
natural  inspiration;  and  these  differences,  just  as  in  the  case 
of  ordinary  authors,  can  be  in  some  measure  traced  to  and  explained 
by  what  we  know  of  the  general  character  of  the  author,  and  even 
of  his  outward  circumstances,  the  opportunities  he  enjoyed,  and 
the  influences  by  which  his  natural  character  may  have  been 
formed.  All  this  is  true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  cannot  be  reason¬ 
ably  disputed.  It  affords,  beyond  all  question,  abundant  ground 
for  the  inference,  that  the  books  of  Scripture  are,  and  may  be  called, 
the  works  or  productions  of  the  human  authors  whose  names  they 
bear,  inasmuch  as  it  shews  that  in  the  composition  of  these  books 


HUMAN  AUTHORSHIP. 


353 


their  ordinary  powers  and  faculties  were  not  in  abeyance,  were 
not  superseded  or  excluded,  but  were  exercised.  This  fact  has 
been  strongly  founded  upon  as  an  argument  against  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture ;  and  if  the  fact  does  disprove  it,  the 
question  is  ended,  for  the  fact  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted.  As  an 
objection  to  the  verbal  inspiration  it  will  be  afterwards  adverted  to. 
We  refer  to  it  at  present  simply  for  the  purpose  of  impressing  upon 
you  the  consideration  that  in  maintaining  that  the  Scripture  is  the 
word  of  God,  as  having  been  all  suggested  or  dictated  by  the  Spirit, 
we  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  it  is  also  the  word  of  men,  composed 
by  them  in  the  exercise,  and  not  in  the  abeyance,  of  their  ordinary 
natural  powers.  The  defenders  of  verbal  inspiration  maintain  that, 
in  one  sense  or  respect,  the  Scripture  is  wholly  the  word  of  God, 
and  that  in  another  sense  or  respect,  though  just  as  truly  and 
really,  it  is  wholly  the  word  of  man  ;  whereas  all  who  deny  the 
verbal  inspiration  are  shut  up,  in  consistency,  to  the  necessity  of 
making  statements  which  clearly  imply  in  substance  that  the  Bible 
is  partly  the  work  of  God  and  partly  the  work  of  man,  but  not 
wholly  the  work  of  either.  This  is  an  important  consideration  as 
affecting  the  real  meaning  of  the  discussion,  and  the  right  state¬ 
ment  of  the  question,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten. 


z 


LECTURE  XXVIII. 


NATUEE  OF  PLENAEY  INSPIEATION— EXAMINATION  OF 

2  TIMOTHY  III.  16. 

3.  AITE  remark,  in  the  third  place,  that  in  asserting  the  plenary 
*  ’  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scripture,  we  advance  nothing, 
and  we  make  no  positive  assertion,  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  operated  upon  the  minds  of  the  authors  in 
the  production  of  these  works,  which  may  be  said  to  be  at  once 
his  and  theirs.  We  have  nothing  explicit  revealed  to  us  in 
Scripture  upon  this  point,  and  we  have  no  other  certain  means  of 
knowing  it.  The  Scripture,  we  think,  gives  us  some  information 
about  the  inspiration  of  the  writings,  but  not  about  the  kind  or 
degree  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writers.  It  is,  as  Dr  Chalmers 
says,  about  the  character  of  the  product,  not  the  mode  of  the 
production,  that  the  Scripture  gives  us  information ;  and  it  is  this 
only  that  we  are  concerned  to  know.  The  opposers  of  verbal 
inspiration  always  run  off  into  discussions  about  the  inspiration  of 
the  authors,  or  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
operated  upon  their  minds  in  the  production  of  the  books.  Their 
grand  principle  is  the  invention  or  fabrication  of  different  kinds  or 
degrees  of  inspiration ;  in  other  words,  of  different  ways  or  modes 
in  which  he  secretly  operated  upon  their  minds,  and  the  application 
of  these  inventions  to  the  different  portions  of  Scripture  which 
they  conceive  them  to  suit.  They  discuss  these  topics  as  if  they 
were  familiar  with  them,  although  neither  the  Spirit  nor  the  authors 
on  whom  his  operation  was  exerted  have  given  us  any  information 
upon  the  subject.  Some  seem  to  think  (and  Dr  Chalmers  seems 
to  have  had  some  impression  of  this  sort)  that  the  doctrine  of 
verbal  inspiration  implies  a  theory  in  regard  to  the  modes  of  the 


PLENARY  INSPIRATION 


355 


Spirit’s  operation  upon  the  minds  of  the  authors  of  the  Scripture, 
and  being  justly  jealous  of  any  theorising  upon  this  subject,  seem 
to  hesitate  about  explicitly  asserting  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration, 
as  if  this  too,  as  well  as  the  other  doctrine,  was  asserting  a  parti¬ 
cular  theory  about  the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s  operation.  This  how¬ 
ever  is  a  misapprehension.  Not  only  do  the  defenders  of  verbal 
inspiration  reject  the  different  kinds  and  degrees  of  inspiration 
which  have  been  invented  without  warrant  from  Scripture  or  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  but  they  do  not,  properly  speaking,  hold 
anything,  or  lay  down  any  assertion  as  to  the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s 
operation.  Their  fundamental,  and  indeed  their  only  position 
upon  this  subject  is,  that  the  Scriptures,  the  sacred  writings,  as  to 
the  words  as  well  as  the  matter,  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 
As  to  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  Spirit  operated  upon  the 
minds  of  the  authors  we  say  nothing,  because  we  know  nothing, 
beyond  this,  that  holy  men  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  is  true  indeed  that  among  the  different  kinds  or 
degrees  of  inspiration  which  have  been  invented  by  the  opposers 
of  verbal  inspiration,  one  is  called  the  inspiration  of  suggestion  ; 
and  this  is  supposed  by  these  men  to  have  been  put  in  operation 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  intended  to  dictate  the  words,  as  well  as 
the  matter ;  and  as  we  hold  that  this  applied  to  the  whole  of  the 
Scripture,  it  may  seem  at  first  view  as  if  we  adopted  one  of  their 
theories  as  to  the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s  agency  upon  the  authors. 
But  this  is  a  misconception.  The  true  state  of  the  case  is  this — 
We  maintain  that  all  Scripture,  the  whole  of  the  writing,  is  inspired 
as  to  the  words  as  well  as  the  matter.  This  is  our  position,  which 
we  undertake  to  establish  from  the  Scripture.  We  maintain  this, 
and  we  maintain  nothing  else.  Oh  !  but,  say  those  who  differ  from 
us,  that  is  the  inspiration  of  suggestion ;  we  hold  that  too,  in 
regard  to  some  parts  of  Scripture  ;  but  we  think  that  this  mode  of 
the  Spirit’s  operation  does  not  apply  to  the  whole,  and  that  some 
of  it  was  composed  under  a  different  mode  of  operation,  and  by 
the  Spirit’s  exerting  a  lower  degree  of  influence  upon  the  minds  of 
the  authors,  which  we  have  called  by  the  name  of  the  inspiration 
of  superintendence.  Now,  to  this  we  answer,  we  know  nothing  of 
different  kinds  or  degrees  of  inspiration ;  we  are  told  nothing  of 
the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s  operation  in  Scripture,  and  we  see  no  plain 
traces  of  a  diversity  of  modes  of  operation  upon  the  face  of  the 


356 


TWENTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


Bible.  You  may  invent  different  kinds  and  degrees  of  inspiration 
if  you  choose,  and  call  them  by  what  names  you  like  ;  but  we 
adhere  to  our  own  position,  which  respects  primarily  and  princi¬ 
pally  not  the  authors,  but  the  books.  We  maintain  that  the 
writings  are  plenarily  and  verbally  inspired  by  God ;  and  we 
think  we  can  establish  this  from  the  statements  of  the  Scripture 
itself;  and  if  so,  this  will  overturn  all  your  theories  about  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit’s  operation.  The  truth  is,  that  the  defenders 
of  plenary  verbal  inspiration  give  themselves  no  concern  with 
these  theories  about  the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s  operation,  and  advert 
to  them  only  when  the  discussion  is  forced  upon  them  by  their 
opponents.  The  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  does  not  require, 
and  indeed  does  not  admit  of,  these  theories ;  and  what  it  is 
specially  important  to  notice,  the  doctrine  which  denies  verbal 
inspiration  cannot  do  without  them.  For  what  is  necessarily 
involved  in  the  denial  of  verbal  inspiration  to  the  whole  Bible  ? 
Why,  manifestly  this,  that  some  mode  of  operation  upon  the  part 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  different  from  that  by  which  it  is  admitted 
that  those  parts  of  the  Bible  which  were  inspired  as  to  the  words 
were  produced,  must  be  supposed  as  having  been  exhibited  in  the 
production  of  those  parts  of  the  Bible  to  which  verbal  inspiration 
does  not  apply.  However  averse  men  may  be  to  the  investigation 
of  these  different  theories  as  to  the  mode  of  the  Spirit’s  operation, 
however  much  they  may  disrelish  the  whole  subject,  it  is  evident, 
upon  a  careful  examination,  that  there  is  really  no  way  in  which 
we  can  entirely  get  quit  of  them,  except  by  unequivocally  asserting 
the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  books.  The 
defenders  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  but  they  alone,  have 
always  appreciated  and  maintained  the  great  principle  of  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  inspiration  of  the  books  and  the  inspiration  of 
the  authors  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  this  distinction,  when  clearly 
seen  and  fully  carried  through,  naturally  and  obviously  leads  men 
to  assert  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  except, 
perhaps,  when  some  fragment  of  the  notion  of  different  kinds  or 
degrees  of  inspiration,  as  exerted  upon  the  authors,  still  continues, 
it  may  be  unconsciously,  to  cleave  to  them. 

These  three  observations  not  only  serve  to  explain  what  is  the 
true  meaning  and  import  of  this  doctrine  of  plenary  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion,  what  is  the  real  nature  of  the  position  we  occupy  in  main- 


2  TIM.  III.  ae. 


357 


taining  it,  but  also  to  answer  some  of  the  objections  by  which  the 
doctrine  has  been  assailed,  as  you  will  see  plainly  upon  reading 
what  has  been  written  upon  the  other  side.  We  proceed  now  to 
advert  to  the  direct  Scriptural  evidence  in  support  of  it.  And 
liere  it  will  at  once  occur  to  you  that  the  great  leading  proof, 
the  locus  classicus,  as  critics  commonly  say,  upon  this  subject, 
is  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  in  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  ‘^All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,”  &c.  The  Greek  is  <7raffa  y^a<pri  dsoirvsvffTog  xai  ojpsXiiMog  v^bg 
dida&xaX/av.  In  examining  critically  into  the  meaning  of  any 
portion  of  the  word  of  God,  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to 
ascertain  as  exactly  as  possible  what  is  the  true  text  or  reading, 
Avhat  were  the  actual  words  that  proceeded  from  the  original 
author,  i.e.  that  if  there  be  various  readings  derived  from  the 
recognised  legitimate  sources  of  various  readings,  and  not  from 
mere  conjecture,  we  try  to  ascertain  which  is  the  right  one.  In 
this  passage  there  is  a  various  reading  whichis  not  unimportant 
in  its  bearing  upon  the  sense.  There  is  one  MS.  which  omits 
the  Kai  between  koTrvsvcrog  and  u^sXtfjLog,  and  there  are  two  or  three 
of  the  ancient  versions  which  seem  to  have  been  translated  from  a 
text  where  the  xa/  was  awanting.  All  the  known  MSS.  however, 
except  one,  have  the  xal;  and  this,  according  to  the  universally 
acknowledged  principles  applicable  to  the  settlement  of  these 
matters,  is  a  sufficient  and  conclusive  proof  that  it  ought  to  stand 
as  part  of  the  text,  and  to  be  received  as  part  of  the  apostle’s  declara¬ 
tion.  The  words  -Truoa  literally  mean  every  writing ^  but  it  is 
well  known  that  yca(p^  and  yia<pa'i  are  frequently  used  in  the  New 
Testament  in  a  peculiar  or  appropriated  sense  to  describe  the 
sacred  writings ;  and  from  the  immediately  preceding  context, 
where  Paul  was  speaking  of  the  h^a  y^a^^iara,  or  sacred  writings, 
which  Timothy  had  known  from  his  youth,  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  y^a<py]  is  used  here  in  this  peculiar  or  appropriated 
sense,  and  that  the  apostle  having  in  the  preceding  verse  spoken 
of  these  sacred  writings  as  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation, 
proceeds  in  the  verse  before  us  to  give  some  further  information  as 
to  their  origin,  character,  and  object.  It  has  indeed  been  alleged 
that  since  here  wants  the  article,  since  it  is  -Tao-a  y^a^pyj,  and  not 
crada  rj  if  must  be  taken  in  its  general  or  inappropriated 

sense,  and  mean  just  any  writing.  It  is  true  that  in  most  of 


358 


TWENTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


the  cases  in  which  the  word,  either  in  the  singular  or  in  the  plural, 
is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  in  its  appropriated  sense  to  the 
sacred  writings,  it  has  the  article  attached  to  it.  But  this  usage  is 
not  universal.  There  are  several  cases,  four  at  least  besides  this, 
where  it  is  used  in  its  appropriated  sense,  without  the  article  ;  and 
the  evidence  in  this  case,  both  from  the  preceding  and  succeeding 
context,  in  favour  of  the  appropriated  sense,  is  so  strong  that  we 
must  have  been  constrained  to  admit  it  here,  even  though  a 
different  usage  about  the  article  had  been  more  uniform  than  it  is. 
The  next  point  to  be  ascertained,  and  the  only  point  of  difficulty 
in  the  passage,  so  far  as  the  grammatical  construction  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  meaning  of  the  words  separately  is  concerned, 
is  this,  whether  k6‘7:viv6Toc  be  a  predicate  or  a  part  of  the  subject 
of  the  sentence,  ifjbog  being  thus  left  as  the  only  predicate,  i.e., 
whether  the  apostle  here  declares  that  all  Scripture  is  komsugrog 
and  u(psXtfjM,  as  it  is  translated  in  our  version,  or  only  that  all 
inspired  Scripture  is  useful.  All  the  opponents  of  inspiration,  and 
some  of  its  friends,  adopt  the  latter  construction,  making  the 
subject  of  the  proposition  to  be  cra^a  y^a(pn  komivarog,  and  the  only 
formal  predicate  to  be  the  assertion  of  its  usefulness  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  specified.  This  construction  is  forced  and  awkward,  attended 
with  considerable  difficulties,  and  required  by  none  of  the  estab¬ 
lished  rules  of  the  syntax  of  the  Greek  language  in  general,  or  of 
the  New  Testament  in  particular.  Could  the  %at  be  got  quit  of, 
this  would  indeed  manifestly  be  the  right  construction,  and  some 
Socinians  have  laboured  to  effect  this ;  but  upon  all  acknowledged 
critical  principles  it  must  stand  as  a  part  of  the  text,  and  standing 
there,  its  natural  and  obvious  use  is  to  connect  together  ko^rvivoTog 
and  u(piXtiJ.og  as  two  different  predicates  of  the  one  subject, 

This  construction  too  requires  that  y^a(py]  must  be  taken  in  its 
general *or  inappropriated  sense  as  meaning  merely  a  writing,  as  well 
as  that  the  xa/  be  slurred  over  as  meaning  even  or  also,”  thus 
manifestly  burdening  or  cumbering  the  sentence.  Upon  this  con¬ 
struction  the  translation  of  the  statement  would  be  this,  “all 
divinely  inspired  writing,  or  every  divinely  inspired  writing,  is  also 
useful  for  doctrine,”  a  declaration  which  conveys  very  little  infer ma- 
ance,  and  is  indeed  little  better  than  a  mere  truism,  and  does  not 
at  all  accord  with  the  manifest  object  of  the  apostle,  as  indicated 
by  the  preceding  context  and  the  connection  of  the  statement. 


^  TIM.  III.  16. 


359 


Those  critics  who  support  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  and  reckon 
this  passage  a  proof  of  it,  but  who  yet  regard  y^a(pn  as  used  here  in 
its  inappropriated  sense,  and  as  not  a  predicate,  but 

merely  a  part  of  the  description  of  the  subject  y^a(pn,  bring  out  a 
testimony  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  way.  They 
virtually  abandon  the  notion  they  had  previously  asserted  of 
y^cKpn  being  here  used  for  writing  in  general,  and  admit  that  it  is 
in  some  way  or  other  appropriated  by  the  connection  to  the  sacred 
writings.  Dr  Pye  Smith,  who  has  adopted  this  construction,  ex¬ 
plains  this  point  in  this  way 

“  It  is  evident  .that  the  apostle  in  ver.  16  resumes  distribiitively  what 
he  had  before  advanced  collectively,  so  that  every  writing  divinely  in¬ 
spired  (for  that  he  contends  is  the  correct  translation)  is  a  description  by 
which  the  apostle  designates  each  and  every  one  of  the  writings  comprised 
Under  the  well  understood  collective  denomination  -ra  U^a.  the  holy 

writings  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse.^’  ^ 

A  statement  which  seems  in  substance,  so  far  as  it  is  intelligible, 
to  be  just  an  admission  that  by  the  preceding  context,  y^a(py]  is  tied 
down,  in  spite  of  the  authority  which  he  ascribes  to  the  alleged 
rule  about  the  absence  of  the  article,  to  its  appropriated  meaning 
of  the  sacred  writings,  thus  admitting  that  the  word  is  used 

here  in  its  appropriated  meaning,  but  still  being  disposed  to  regard 
Qio^viuCTog  as  a  part  or  attribute  of  the  subject,  and  not  as  a  predi¬ 
cate,  he  would  translate  it  in  this  way,  “  all  Scripture  being  divinely 
inspired,  is  also  useful,”  &c.,  where  the  inspiration  of  the  whole  of 
Scripture  is  assumed,  if  not  expressly  asserted.  And  to  this  trans¬ 
lation  there  is  no  very  material  objection,  though  it  is,  we  think, 
very  evident  that  it  is  not  the  most  natural  and  obvious  construc¬ 
tion  ;  that  the  xai  translated  also  is  not  only  useless  but  awkward  ; 
while  there  is  a  difficulty  in  the  necessity  of  providing  two  dif¬ 
ferent  supplements,  one  for  ko^vivcrag  and  a  different  one  for 
upXifjjog,  in  place  of  merely  supplying  the  substantive  verb  with 
^so-TTVivoTog,  as  a  predicate  coupled  by  %ai  with  the  other  predicate 
u(psXifiog.  Upon  the  whole,  we  see  no  ground  whatever  for  doubt¬ 
ing,  and  we  are  firmly  persuaded,  that  our  common  translation  is 
the  correct  one,  and  that  the  assertion  of  the  apostle  is,  that  all 
Scripture,  meaning  thereby  at  least  all  the  Old  Testament  (we 
say  at  least,  for  some  have  contended,  upon  grounds  not  destitute 

^  Scripture  Testimony,  vol.  1.  p.  33,  3d  edition  ;  4tli  edition,  p.  23. 


360 


TWENTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


of  plausibility,  that  it  may  comprehend  also  the  New),  is 
and  useful  for  doctrine.  It  is  well  that  Dr  Pye  Smith  should  make 
the  admission  (p.  34)  that  “this  passage,  though  we  adopt  the 
construction  of  ^gdcrvsuffros,  which  Socinians  generally  approve,  fur¬ 
nishes  the  strongest  testimony  to  the  inspiration  of  all  the 
books  recognised  by  Paul  as  the  sacred  writings  ;  ”  but  we  rejoice 
to  think  that  this  great  truth,  as  here  taught,  rests  upon  a 
clearer  and  safer  foundation  than  his  construction  of  and 

seems  capable  of  affording.  Some  minds  are  apt  to  be 
tempted  and  led  astray  by  the  appearance  at  once  of  ingenuity 
and  candour  in  conceding  a  point  to  an  adversary,  and  then 
shewing  how,  notwithstanding  the  concession,  the  truth  can  be 
maintained.  This  may  sometimes  be  useful  and  expedient  in 
ordinary  controversy ;  but  in  a  case  of  this  sort  the  only  proper 
question  is.  What  is  the  right  construction  of  the  words?  What  is  the 
real  meaning  and  import  of  the  statement  ?  And  we  have  no  doubt 
that  here,  upon  a  fair  examination  of  the  passage,  and  according 
to  the  soundest  principles  of  grammatical  construction,  there  is 
abundant  and  satisfactory  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  the  con¬ 
struction  exhibited  in  our  translation  is  the  right  one,  and  that  the 
apostle  here  explicitly  asserts  that  all  Scripture  is  dio^unmiTog.  But 
the  most  important  question  still  remains,  viz.,  what  is  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  this  assertion,  what  is  it  that  is  here  affirmed  of  all  Scrip¬ 
ture  ?  This  of  course  leads  to  a  consideration  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word  kmnuCTog.  The  word  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  its  meaning  therefore  cannot  be  ascertained  by  an 
examination  of  parallel  passages,  which  is  usually  the  best  and 
most  certain  way  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words.  Its  ety¬ 
mological  meaning  however  is  very  plain,  and  quite  sufficient  to 
bring  out  and  to  establish  the  general  idea  attached  to  it.  It  literally 
means  God-hreathed,  or  divinely  breathed.  It  has  indeed  been 
suggested  that  the  word  may  be  understood  actively  as  well  as 
passively,  and  may  mean  God-breathing,  i.e.  full  of  God,  and  exhi¬ 
biting  him  throughout.  This  is  true  of  the  Scriptures,  but  it  is 
not  the  truth  taught  here,  for  it  has  been  fully  proved  that  both 
the  ordinary  analogy  of  such  compound  words,  and  the  connection 
and  object  of  the  statement,  require  that  it  be  here  translated  God- 
breathed,  divinely  breathed,  or  as  it  is  in  our  translation,  “  given 
by  inspiration  of  God.”  Now,  this  of  course  means  in  general  that 


PLENARY  INSPIRATION  VERBAL. 


361 


the  Scriptures  are  to  be  traced  to  the  agency  of  God  s  Spirit,  that 
to  his  operation  they  owe  their  existence.  This  is  admitted  to  be 
implied  in  the  declaration  by  all  who  acknowledge  that  ko^vivGrog 
is  here  predicated  directly  or  by  implication  of  the  Scripture.  And 
many  would  have  us  to  rest  in  this  general  averment,  as  if  nothing 
more  was  involved  in  it,  and  nothing  more  could  be  fairly  deduced 
from  it.  This,  however,  appears  to  be  refusing  to  make  a  right 
use  and  a  full  application  of  what  the  apostle  has  told  us.  We 
cannot  dwell  upon  this  important  statement,  or  seek  to  form  a 
clear  and  definite  conception  of  what  it  really  means  and  was 
intended  to  teach,  without  seeing  that  it  implies  or  involves,  not 
indeed  more  than  has  been  stated  above,  but  that  it  implies  or 
involves  that  position  in  a  more  distinct  and  definite  form.  Let  it 
be  observed,  that  in  accordance  with  the  important  principle 
already  explained,  it  is  not  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Scripture 
that  are  here  spoken  of,  but  the  books  themselves,  that  it  tells  us 
nothing  of  the  kind  or  mode  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  their  minds,  by  which  these  books  were  produced,  but  of  the 
origin  and  character  of  the  books  themselves.  And  what  does  it 
tell  us  of  the  books  ?  That  they  were  breathed  or  inspired  by 
God,  that  is,  that  they  were  produced  by  the  agency  of  the  Spirit, 
just  as  man’s  words  are  produced  by  him,  through  his  breathing, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  his  ordinary  organs  of  speech.  The  Scrip¬ 
ture  here  spoken  of,  and  referred  to  the  inspiration  of  God  as  its 
cause,  consists  wholly  of  words.  The  words  wholly  make  or  con¬ 
stitute  it.  The  Scripture  in  a  certain  sense  is  words,  and  nothing 
but  words,  and  therefore  everything  predicated  of  the  Scripture 
naturally  and  obviously  must  be  held  to  apply  to  the  words  which 
compose  it.  This  is  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  every 
such  assertion  ;  and  if  any  other  meaning  or  reference  be  attached 
to  it,  good  and  sufficient  reasons  must  be  adduced  why  this,  the 
natural  and  obvious  meaning,  must  be  departed  from,  and  a  dif¬ 
ferent  meaning  and  reference  of  the  statement  must  be  produced 
and  established  by  satisfactory  evidence.  It  was  the  Scripture, 
and  not  the  contents  or  substance  of  it,  not  the  truths  or  senti¬ 
ments  conveyed  by  it,  or  the  facts  narrated,  but  the  Scripture, 
that  was  divinely  inspired ;  and  what  distinct  meaning  can  we 
attach  to  this  statement,  unless  we  admit  that  the  Scripture  as  it 
stands,  composed  wholly  of  words,  the  words  which  make  it  up,  is 


362 


TWENTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


to  be  traced  to  the  agency  or  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Had 
the  statement  of  the  apostle  been  that  the  men  who  composed  the 
Scripture  were  in  composing  it  inspired  by  God,  or  the  subjects  of 
a  divine  breathing  or  infusion,  and  we  had  no  further  information 
about  the  matter,  this  would  have  left  the  subject  in  a  somewhat 
vague  and  indefinite  form,  and  would  not  have  compelled  us  to 
adopt  any  very  specific  conclusion  either  as  to  the  nature  of  his 
agency  or  the  consequent  character  of  the  resulting  product.  Had 
this  been  the  position  asserted,  there  might  have  been  room,  so  far 
as  this  statement  was  concerned,  for  suppositions  or  theories  as  to 
the  extent  of  his  agency,  and  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  result¬ 
ing  book  was  to  be  ascribed  to  his  operation.  But  when  the  book 
itself  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  inspired  by  him,  this  in  all 
fairness  must  be  held  to  imply  that  the  words  which  constitute  the 
book,  which  in  fact  are  the  book,  came  from  him,  were  communi¬ 
cated  by  him,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  fruits  or  results  of  his 
operation  of  what  he  did  in  bringing  the  book  into  existence. 
Inspiration,  when  predicated  of  a  book,  naturally  and  properly 
means  this,  and  cannot  without  straining  mean  anything  else. 

The  natural,  obvious,  and  unstrained  meaning  of  the  apostle’s 
assertion  then  is,  that  the  Scripture,  as  it  has  been  given  to  men, 
composed  wholly  of  words,  was  communicated  by  God,  and  is  to  be 
traced  to  him  as  its  author ;  and  as  it  has  been  communicated  to 
us  through  the  instrumentality  of  certain  men  who  committed 
it  to  writing,  the  inference  seems,  and  unless  some  strong  positive 
arguments  can  be  adduced  upon  the  other  side,  is,  irresistible, 
that  he  guided  them  in  the  composition  of  it,  and  was  the  real 
cause  and  author  of  what  they  wrote,  and  of  what  has  been 
transmitted  to  us  under  their  names.  It  is  not  an  inference  from 
this  position,  it  is  the  very  position  itself  expressed  in  different 
words  and  in  another  form,  that  the  words  which  compose  or 
constitute  the  Scripture,  all  Scripture,  at  least  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament,  were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  those  whom 
lie  employed  as  his  instruments  in  committing  them  to  writing, 
and  transmitting  them  to  us.  As  this  is  the  natural  and  obvious 
meaning  of  an  assertion  of  inspiration  by  God  applied  to  a 
writing  and  not  to  the  author,  then  if  any  one  deny  that  this  is 
its  actual  and  intended  meaning,  he  must  take  upon  himself  the 
burden  of  proof,  and  produce  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  assertion. 


^  TIM,  III,  16, 


363 


He  must  first  establish  the  necessity  of  deviating  here  from  what 
is  the  proper  literal  meaning  of  the  words  as  they  stand,  and  he 
must  then  explain  how,  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  usage  of 
language,  they  admit  of  a  different  meaning.  Attempts  of  this 
kind  accordingly  have  been  made,  though  we  have  not  met  with 
any  which  we  regard  as  successful.  When  an  interpretation  is 
proposed  for  any  scriptural  statement  which  involves  a  plain 
deviation  from  the  natural,  obvious  literal  meaning  of  the  words, 
the  necessity  and  propriety  of  the  deviation  are  usually  established 
either  by  arguments  drawn  from  the  context  or  from  some  other 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  are  alleged  to  necessitate  the  devia¬ 
tion,  and  to  require  the  interpretation  proposed.  Nothing  of  the 
kind  can  be  adduced  here  as  warranting  or  requiring  a  deviation 
from  the  natural  obvious  meaning  of  the  apostle’s  declaration. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  context  that  points  to  any  other  meaning. 
No  passage  is  produced  from  any  other  part  of  Scripture  that 
even  seems  to  contradict  this,  or  to  require  any  limitation  of  its 
natural  and  literal  meaning.  It  is  alleged  indeed  by  some  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture  is  not  true, 
and  that  therefore  this  passage  must  be  interpreted  so  as  not  to 
assert  it.  But  then  they  do  not  profess  to  produce  any  declaration 
of  Scripture,  which  directly  or  by  implication  denies  the  verbal 
inspiration  ;  and  their  only  arguments  consist  of  certain  reasonings 
or  inferences  of  their  own,  based  partly  upon  some  general  features 
or  characteristics  which  attach  to  the  Scriptures,  and  partly  upon 
certain  notions  they  have  devised  of  what  is  necessary,  fitting, 
and  expedient.  These  will  be  afterwards  adverted  to  under  the 
head  of  objections,  but  at  present  we  only  observe  that  they  do 
not  stand  upon  the  same  footing  as  passages  of  Scripture  which 
seem  to  teach  different  and  opposite  doctrine,  and  thus  to  require 
a  modification  of  this  one  ;  that  they  come  merely  under  the  head 
of  difficulties,  and  that  they  are  not  by  any  means  so  serious  or 
formidable  as  to  warrant,  far  less  require,  us  to  put  a  forced  and 
strained  interpretation  upon  this  passage,  and  to  deviate  from 
what  is  the  natural,  ordinary,  literal  meaning  of  the  w'ords.  It 
has  been  contended  by  some,  and  especially  by  Mr  Carson,  who 
has  rendered  admirable  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  in  this 
matter,  by  his  most  effective  and  conclusive  demolition  of  the  rea¬ 
sonings  of  the  opposers  of  verbal  inspiration,  that  '‘all  Scripture” 


364 


TWENTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


here  includes  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  as  well  as 
the  Old,  not  only  all  of  them  that  were  in  existence  when  this 
epistle  was  written,  but  also  all  that  might  be  afterwards  added 
to  the  Canon.  I  am  not  satisfied  that  he  has  succeeded  in 
establishing  this  point,  though  his  argument  is  not  destitute  of 
plausibility.  It  is  founded  mainly  upon  a  circumstance  formerly 
adverted  to,  viz.,  the  omission  of  the  article,  the  use  of 
instead  of  rraoa  7}  'y^a(p^.  His  ground  seems  rather  too  narrow 
and  shadowy  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  so  important  an  inference; 
and  though  some  rules  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  article 
have  been  sufficiently  established  (especially  by  Middleton  in  his 
w^ork  on  the  Greek  article,  to  which  he  refers)  to  be  made  the 
basis  of  valid  arguments  for  important  doctrinal  conclusions,  yet 
the  precise  rule  on  which  Mr  Carson’s  argument  is  founded  can 
scarcely  be  regarded  as  established  yet.  The  principle  or  rule 
quoted  from  Middleton,  if  established,  would  indeed  warrant 
the  conclusion  that  if  the  article  had  been  inserted  in  this  passage 
before  this  would  have  been  a  proof  that  the  apostle  spoke 

only  of  Scripture  already  existing  ;  but  it  is  a  different  point,  and 
requires  additional  and  independent  proof,  that  the  omission  of 
the  article  proves,  as  Mr  Carson  alleges,  that  this  reference  was 
not  confined  to  existing  Scripture,  and  extended  to  everything 
that  might  come  to  be  legitimately  comprehended  under  that 
designation. 


LECTURE  XXIX. 


VERBAL  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— MODE  OF 
QUOTING  OLD  TESTAMENT— OBJECTIONS. 


But  though  the  doctrine  of  the  text  cannot  be  certainly  proved 
from  the  mere  words  to  extend  directly  beyond  the  canonical 


Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  yet  it  affords  obvious  and  con¬ 
clusive  grounds  for  an  argument  a  fortiori  in  behalf  of  the  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  New.  This  is  too  obvious  to  require  to 
be  dwelt  upon  at  any  length.  If  all  the  Old  Testament  was  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  we  cannot  doubt  that  all  the  New  enjoys  the 
same  privilege,  is  to  be  traced  to  the  same  source,  and  ascribed  to 
the  same  cause  or  agency.  Whether  we  look  to  the  gifts  and 
endowments  of  the  men  who  composed  it,  the  subjects  of  which  it 
treats,  its  internal  marks  of  a  divine  original,  the  purposes  which 
it  was  intended  to  serve,  and  the  effects  it  has  been  instrumental 
in  producing,  we  cannot  doubt  that  its  origin  was  as  lofty,  and  its 
authority  as  exalted  as  that  of  the  Old.  When  God  at  sundry 
times,  and  in  divers  manners,  spoke  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  and  gave  his  Spirit  to  produce  the  record  of  their  revela¬ 
tions,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  same  divine  agency  was  exerted 
in  producing  the  record  of  what  in  these  last  days  he  was  pleased 
to  communicate  to  us  by  his  Son.  John  the  Baptist  was  greater 
than  any  of  the  prophets,  and  yet  he  that  was  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  was  greater  than  he.  Christ  unquestionably  promised 
to  his  apostles  verbal  inspiration  when  they  should  be  brought 
before  kings  and  rulers  (Matt.  x.  19,20;  Mark  xiii.  11;  Luke 
xxi.,  14).  And  he  would  not  withhold  it  from  them,  when 
under  his  guidance  they  were  led  to  prepare  writings  for  the  per¬ 
manent  instruction  of  the  church. 


3G6 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


Paul  expressly  claimed  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
cause  or  source  of  the  words  which  he  uttered  when  he  said, 
“Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man’s  wisdom 
teacheth,  but  which  the -Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  comparing  spiritual 
things  with  spiritual  ”  (1  Cor.  ii.  13).  And  we  cannot  suppose  that 
he  Vv'ould  enjoy  less  of  it  when  he  proceeded  to  write  under  the 
Spirit’s  direction.  And  it  is  deserving  of  remark  that  in  the 
context  of  the  passage  we  have  been  considering,  Paul  dis¬ 
tinctly  identified  the  instructions  which  he  had  given,  and  was 
then  giving  to  Timothy,  in  point  of  divine  authority,  with  those 
very  Scriptures  which  he  has  assured  us  were  given  by  inspiration 
of  God  (ver.  14).  It  stands  thus  :  “  But  continue  thou  in  the 
things  which  thou  hast  learned,  and  hast  been  assured  of,  knowing 
of  whom  thou  hast  learned  them,  and  that  from  a  child  thou  hast 
known  the  Holy  Scriptures  (ra  kga  y^a^/xam)  which  are  able  to 
make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God  ;  and  is  profit¬ 
able  for  doctrine,”  &c.  There  are  here  two  grounds  on  which  Paul 
requires  of  Timothy  to  adhere  with  unshaken  confidence  to  the 
doctrines  which  he  had  been  taught — the  first  was,  that  he  had 
been  taught  them  by  Paul  himself,  knowing  of  whom  thou  hast 
learned  them  and  the  second  was,  that  they  were  all  based  upon 
and  confirmed  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  had 
been  all  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  And  of  course  the  only 
ground  on  which  he  could  have  been  justified  in  thus  putting  the 
authority  of  his  own  instructions  upon  a  level  with  those  of  the 
Old  Testament  was,  that  his  discourses  were  to  be  traced  to  the 
same  inspiring  agency  as  they  were,  i.e.  that  both  as  to  the  words 
and  the  ideas  they  proceeded  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  their  source 
and  author.  Indeed,  the  two  things  here  adduced  and  founded 
on  strikingly  illustrate  and  confirm  each  other.  On  the  one  hand, 
Paul  asserts  that  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God  ;  and  by  claiming  equal  authority  for  his  own 
iDstructions,he  claims  for  them  the  same  inspiration.  And  on  the 
other  hand,  we  know  from  another  declaration  of  Paul’s  quoted 
above,  that  these  instructions  were  communicated,  not  in  words 
which  man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth,  and  yet  he  puts  here  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament  upon  a  level  with  them,  from  which  the  inference  is 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


3G7 


plain,  that  they  too  were  composed  in  words  not  taught  by 
man’s  wisdom,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  this  relation  subsists 
generally  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  and  the  argu¬ 
ments  or  testimonies  by  which  their  origin  and  authority  may  be 
established  respectively.  For  the  matter  stands  thus  : — We  know 
directly  and  certainly  that  the  apostles  were  so  guided  and  directed 
in  their  oral  instructions  as  that  these  were  to  be  ascribed,  words 
as  well  as  ideas,  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  indepen¬ 
dently  of  the  argument  which  may  be  fairly  deduced  from  this  as 
a  matter  of  fact  in  favour  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  their  writings, 
and  from  the  testimonies  formerly  adverted  to  in  which  they  put 
their  writings  on  a  level  in  point  of  authority  with  their  oral  instruc¬ 
tions,  we  have  this  further  consideration,  that  they  put  their 
instructions  and  writings  upon  a  level  in  point  of  authority  with 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  declare  these  writings  to 
have  been  given  by  inspiration  of  God  ;  or  to  reverse  the  argument, 
for  it  is  Valid  either  way,  they  declare  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  be  given  by  Inspiration  of  God,  a  statement  which 
as  applied  to  writings,  naturally  and  obviously  implies  that  the 
words  of  which  these  writings  are  composed,  are  to  be  ascribed  to 
his  agency,  and  then  put  their  own  instructions  and  writings  upon 
a  level  with  them,  and  thus  ascribe  them  to  the  same  source,  and 
exalt  them  to  the  same  authority. 

The  declaration  of  the  apostle  that  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  affords  a  satisfactory  proof  of  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  by  plain  consequence  of  the  whole  of  the 
New,  a  proof  so  clear  and  direct,  that  nothing  can  overturn  it 
except  an  equally  clear  and  direct  proof  from  Scripture  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  false.  If  this 
position  could  be  established  by  any  satisfactory  evidence,  then 
we  might  be  brought  under  a  necessity  of  trying  to  explain  away 
the  natural  import  of  the  apostle’s  declaration,  and  of  exerting 
our  ingenuity  to  find  out  some  process  of  thought  or  some  mode 
of  conceiving  of  and  representing  this  matter,  by  which  we  might 
understand  if  possible  how  writings  could  be  truly  said  to  be 
divinely  inspired,  while  yet  the  words  of  which  they  were  com¬ 
posed  were  to  a  large  extent  to  be  traced  merely  to  the  operation 
of  men’s  own  faculties  as  the  source  or  cause.  The  work  would 
be  a  difficult  one  ;  but  when  once  conclusive  proof  is  adduced  from 


368 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


Scripture  that  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Bible  is  false,  we  must  undertake  it,  and  make  the  best  of  it, 
though  nothing  short  of  a  clear  proof  of  this  should  either  lead  us 
to  make  such  an  attempt,  or  induce  us  to  doubt  about  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  the  proof  in  favour  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Scripture  derived  from  the  natural,  obvious,  literal  meaning 
of  the  apostle’s  declaration. 

Before  proceeding  to  answer  the  objections  that  have  been 
adduced  against  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scripture,  or 
the  proof  that  has  been  adduced  that  the  doctrine  of  verbal 
inspiration  is  false,  and  that  therefore  some  strained  and  far¬ 
fetched  interpretation  must  be  found  for  the  apostle’s  declaration 
that  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God — for  this,  as  has 
been  proved,  is  the  proper  logical  position  which  the  argument  of 
our  opponents  upon  this  question  ought  to  assume — we  must  advert 
for  a  little  to  a  very  interesting  and  important  confirmation  of  the 
apostle’s  doctrine,  founded  upon  the  use  which  Christ  and  his 
apostles  actually  made  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  the  way 
in  which  they  used,  treated,  and  dealt  with  their  statements.  We 
have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  advert  to  the  testimony  borne  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  we  entered  into  no  details  upon  this  subject, 
because  from  a  conviction  that  their  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
Old  Testament  and  its  particular  statements  not  only  proved  its 
divine  origin  and  authority  in  some  general  and  inferior  sense, 
but  moreover  established  its  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  we  reserved 
a  more  particular  notice  of  this  topic  till  the  stage  at  which  we 
have  now  arrived.  We  do  not  mean  however  to  dwell  upon  it  at 
much  length,  because  the  subject,  though  very  interesting  and 
important,  is  not  attended  with  much  difficulty  as  a  matter  of 
speculation,  and  because  you  can  easily  prosecute  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  it  for  yourselves.  The  general  subject  indeed  of  the  appli¬ 
cation  made  of  the  Old  Testament  statements  by  the  writers  of 
the  New  is  one  of  great  importance,  and  attended  with  consider¬ 
able  difficulty,  but  this  we  are  not  called  at  present  to  consider. 
Much  is  to  be  learned  from  a  general  survey  of  the  references  to 
and  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  by  our  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  concerning  the  general  character  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  collection  of  writings  which  stand  out  from  all 


TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES. 


369 


others,  and  to  which  a  divine  origin  and  divine  authority  are  mani¬ 
festly  ascribed.  But  at  present  we  have  to  do  only  with  these 
applications  of  the  Old  Testament  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles, 
which  indicate  that  they  regarded  it  as  verbally  inspired.  Not  to 
dwell  upon  general  declarations  of  Christ  himself  about  the  Old 
Testament,  which  in  their  fair  construction  imply  almost  as  clear 
and  explicit  an  assertion  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  as  that  declaration  of  the  apostle  which  we  have  illustrated, 
such  as  “one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law 
till  all  be  fulfilled,”  “  the '  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,”  &c.,  we 
would  especially  direct  your  attention  to  two  classes  of  passages 
as  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  verbal  inspiration — First,  those  in 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  manifestly  base  an  argument  upon 
the  precise  words  employed  in  the  quotations  they  adduced  from 
the  Old  Testament.  This  we  find  they  did  in  many  cases,  and 
this  affords  a  proof  that  they  reckoned  the  Old  Testament 
verbally  inspired.  We  need  not  occupy  your  time  with  quoting 
examples  ;  you  will  find  the  subject  fully  illustrated,  and  examples 
adduced,  in  Haldane  and  Gaussen  on  inspiration,  and  you  ought 
to  notice  this  and  trace  it  out  in  examining  the  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  New. 

The  second  class  of  passages  to  which  we  referred  is  that  which 
exhibits  the  different  ways  in  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  intro¬ 
duce  the  authors  of  the  statements  they  quote  from  the  Old 
Testament.  The  substance  of  their  practice  upon  this  point  is 
this — sometimes  they  refer  the  statements  they  quote  from  the 
Old  Testament  directly  to  God  alone  as  the  author;  and  some¬ 
times,  without  mentioning  God  at  all,  they  ascribe  the  statements 
to  Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  &c.  Sometimes  they  ascribe  the  state¬ 
ments  they  quote  to  God  speaking  by  the  prophet,  or  by  a  particu¬ 
lar  prophet  whose  name  they  specify,  and  sometimes  they  ascribe 
them  to  the  author  whom  they  name  speaking  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
or  in  the  Spirit.  We  have  all  these  different  modes  of,  referring 
to  the  authors  of  the  statements  of  the  Old  Testament  employed 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  employed  to  all  appearance  indis¬ 
criminately.  And  what  are  the  inferences  in  regard  to  the  real 
character,  cause,  origin,  source  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  to  which  this  remarkable  practice  seems  plainly  to  lead  ? 

2  A 


370 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


Manifestly  these,  that  these  books  are  the  word  of  God,  and  that 
they  are  also  the  word  of  man  ;  that  in  one  sense  and  in  one  aspect 
they  are  wholly  God’s  word,  and  in  another  wholly  man’s  ;  that 
God  had  so  much  to  do  with  all  of  them  that  they  are  his,  and 
that  their  human  authors  had  so  much  to  do  with  all  of  them  that 
they  are  theirs.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  then  we  are  shut  up  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Bible  was  verbally  inspired.  For  we  formerly 
shewed  you — and  the  consideration  is  an  important  one — that  the 
doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration,  combined  with  the  undoubted  fact 
of  the  employment  of  human  instrumentality  in  the  production  of 
the  books  of  Scripture,  finds  its  obvious  and  appropriate  expression 
in  the  position  that  the  Bible  is  in  one  sense  wholly  the  word  of 
God,  and  in  another  wholly  the  word  of  man ;  while  any  doctrine 
short  of  that  of  verbal  inspiration  is  inconsistent  with  this  posi¬ 
tion,  and  necessarily  implies  that  the  Bible  is  partly  the  word  of 
God  and  partly  the  word  of  man,  but  is  in  no  sense  wholly  the 
Avord  of  either.  Any  man  who  denies  verbal  inspiration  can  easily 
be  shut  up  to  this. 

We  proceed  now  to  advert  to  the  objections  which  have  been 
adduced  against  this  doctrine  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  or  we 
should  rather  say  the  proofs  Avhich  have  been  brought  forward  to 
establish  that  this  doctrine  is  false.  The  objections  most  fre¬ 
quently  adduced  against  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  taking 
the  word  in  its  widest  sense,  and  comprehending  the  whole  subject 
of  their  divine  origin  and  authority  without  special  reference  to 
the  subject  of  verbal  inspiration,  are  taken  from  their  alleged 
errors  both  in  matters  of  reasoning  and  of  fact,  the  contradictions 
and  inconsistencies  said  to  be  found  in  them,  and  the  supposed 
insignificance  of  many  of  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  We 
formerly  had  occasion  to  advert  to  these  topics,  viewed  as  objec¬ 
tions  against  inspiration  altogether,  or  the  interposition  of  any 
divine  agency  in  the  production  of  the  books,  and  to  point  out 
generally  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  ought  to  be  dealt 
Avith  and  disposed  of.  We  assume  noAv,  as  proved  at  a  former 
stage  of  the  argument,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  particular 
statements  of  Scripture,  or  in  any  general  feature  or  quality 
attaching  to  it,  which  disproves  its  divine  origin  and  authority  in 
the  general  sense  in  which  this  is  held  by  those  Avho  deny  its 
plenary  verbal  inspiration ;  and  the  object  of  our  present  inquiry 


OBJECTIONS. 


371 


IP,  whether  or  not  anything  has  been  adduced  which  should  pre¬ 
vent  us  from  adopting  the  doctrine  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration — 
a  doctrine  which,  as  we  have  seen,  appears  to  be  plainly  sanc¬ 
tioned  by  the  statements  of  Scripture. 

Now,  you  will  recollect  that  those  with  whom  we  are  at  present 
contending,  and  to  whose  objections  we  are  now  to  advert,  admit 
that  some  parts  of  Scripture  are  verbally  inspired,  though  they 
deny  that  the  whole  of  it  is  in  this  sense  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit.  As  they  deny  that  those  passages  which  we 
regard  as  asserting  or  implying  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  whole 
Bible — and  which,  whatever  they  mean,  manifestly  apply  to  the 
whole  Bible — sanction  verbal  inspiration  at  all,  they  base  their 
admission  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  some  parts  of  it  mainly  upon 
the  necessity  of  the  case,  i.e.  they  see  and  admit  that  when  God 
employed  man  to  communicate  to  others,  and  to  commit  to  writing 
matters  of  pure  revelation,  of  which  they  could  not  have  any  pre¬ 
vious  knowledge  from  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  or  to 
predict  future  events,  especially  as  we  find  that  men  did  some¬ 
times  not  fully  understand  the  meaning  of  their  own  predictions, 
the  words  as  well  as  the  ideas  must  have  been  communicated  to 
them  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  certainly  proves  that  some  parts 
of  Scripture  must  have  been  verbally  inspired,  though  it  is  not  the 
most  satisfactory  ground  on  which  to  rest  so  important  a  truth. 
It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  remind  you  that  they  do 
admit  the  verbal  inspiration  of  some  parts  of  Scripture,  on  whatever 
grounds  they  may  rest  it,  and  that  therefore,  for  this  is  the  practical 
result  to  which  we  wish  to  point  your  attention,  they  are  not 
entitled  to  urge  against  us  any  argument  or  consideration  which 
either  directly  or  by  implication  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that 
no  part  of  the  Bible  was  verbally  inspired.  Anything  they  may 
adduce  which  in  its  fair  application  goes  this  length  proves  too 
much,  and  must  therefore  be  set  aside  as  proving  nothing.  If  you 
examine  carefully  the  arguments  of  those  who  deny  plenary  verbal 
inspiration,  you  will  find  that  they  exhibit  a  good  deal  of  confusion 
and  inconsistency  upon  this  point,  and  that  some  of  them,  if  they 
prove  anything,  prove  that  no  part  of  the  Bible  was  verbally 
inspired — a  doctrine  which  they  themselves  profess  to  oppose. 
And  you  will  find  much  valuable  assistance  in  tracing  this  con¬ 
fusion  and  inconsistency  in  Mr  Carson  s  very  acute  and  masterly 


372 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


exposure  of  the  theories  of  the  E-ev.  Daniel  Wilson  (now  Bishop 
of  Calcutta),  and  Dr  Pye  Smith  on  inspiration.  The  truth  is  that 
many  of  those  who  have  written  against  plenary  verbal  inspiration 
seem  to  be  influenced  by  some  strong  and  not  very  well  defined 
prejudice  against  it,  to  be  often  tempted  to  withdraw  even  the 
concessions  which  they  are  forced  to  make  as  to  the  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  of  some  parts  of  Scripture,  and  to  be  ever  manifesting,  perhaps 
unconsciously,  a  sort  of  desire  to  get  quit  of  it  altogether.  The 
origin  or  foundation  of  this  feeling  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  vague 
impression  that,  while  it  was  quite  worthy  of  God  to  reveal  to 
men  great  truths  which  they  could  not  have  learned  in  the  ordi¬ 
nary  use  of  their  faculties,  and  which  concerned  their  relation  to 
him  and  their  everlasting  welfare,  it  was  not  worthy  of  him  to  be 
so  closely  connected  with  many  of  the  comparatively  unimportant 
matters  treated  of  in  the  Bible,  and  that  if  the  Bible  were  really 
the  word  of  God  in  any  such  sense  as  plenary  verbal  inspiration 
implies,  it  would  have  possessed  a  very  different  character  from 
what  it  has ;  that  it  would  have  been  throughout  much  more 
majestic,  dignified,  exalted;  in  short,  more  like  God,  and  more 
worthy  of  him  than  it  is.  The  unreasonableness  of  any  such 
notions,  whether  secretly  and  unconsciously  cherished,  or  openly 
expressed  and  avowed,  is  proved  by  the  obvious  analogy  of  God’s 
works  of  creation  and  providence.  It  is  true  not  only  that  every 
object  in  creation,  however  minute  and  insignificant — nay,  even 
loathsome,  and  in  some  respects  noxious — has  been  brought  into 
existence,  and  is  still  preserved  by  the  word  of  his  power ;  and  that 
all  the  events  which  take  place,  the  least  as  well  as  the  greatest, 
are  comprehended  in  the  great  scheme  of  his  moral  government, 
are  directed  and  controlled  by  his  immediate  agency ;  but  also, 
moreover,  that  all  these  works  of  creation  and  providence,  objects 
and  events,  were  and  are  intended  by  him  to  make  himself  known, 
to  afford  the  means  and  the  materials  of  manifesting  his  glory  and 
leading  his  rational  creatures  to  glorify  him,  and  that  they  are  all 
fitted  to  promote  this  great  end.  His  word  too,  which  he  has 
magnified  above  all  his  works,  was  fitted  and  intended  to  serve 
the  same  end,  for  no  higher  ultimate  end  is  or  can  be  aimed  at 
even  by  God  himself.  It  can  therefore  be  no  good  ground  for  the 
belief  that  he  was  not  most  closely  and  intimately  connected  with 
the  production  of  every  part  of  the  Bible,  that  it  exhibits  a  close 


OBJECTIONS. 


373 


analogy  to  his  works  of  creation  and  providence,  both  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed,  and  the 
way  and  manner  in  which  these  materials  are  brought  out  and 
arranged.  The  Bible  was  intended  for  man  s  use,  for  his  instruc¬ 
tion  and  guidance,  and  God's  wisdom  in  the  production  of  it  was 
manifested  in  adapting  it  to  men’s  capacities,  in  bringing  it  down, 
as  it  were,  to  men’s  level ;  in  making  it  similar  to  the  other  means 
men  have  of  acquiring  knowledge  rather  than  in  making  it  alto¬ 
gether  and  in  every  respect  peculiar  and  extraordinary.  The 
Bible,  though  coming  immediately  from  God,  or  rather  because 
coming  from  God  and  stamped  with  his  wisdom,  is  adapted  to 
men’s  powers  and  capacities,  addresses  itself  to  his  ordinary  feel¬ 
ings  and  susceptibilities,  and  thus  when  once  known  and  received 
as  coming  from  God,  is  admirably  adapted  for  producing  upon 
men  all  its  intended  effects.  This  might  be,  as  indeed  it  often 
has  been,  fully  illustrated.  It  is  enough  at  present  merely  to 
suggest  it. 

Not  only  was  God’s  word  intended  for  men,  and  therefore  suited 
to  their  nature  and  adapted  to  their  capacities,  but  God  was  also 
pleased  to  communicate  it  through  men,  and  to  make  use  of  their 
instrumentality  in  producing  it.  If  God  were  to  address  men  at 
all,  so  that  they  could  understand  his  statements  and  profit  by 
them,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have  respect  to  the  ordinary 
capacities  of  men,  and  to  the  usual  principles  and  laws  of  human 
language.  This  would  require  that  the  Bible,  though  proceeding 
immediately  from  God,  should  be  in  many  important  respects 
similar  to  other  books.  But  even  with  this  necessity  of  having 
regard  to  men’s  capacities  and  the  principles  of  human  thought 
and  language,  God  might  have  communicated  to  men  a  written 
revelation  of  himself — a  book  that  should  make  known  to  men 
the  way  of  salvation  and  the  path  of  duty — without  using  the 
instrumentality  of  men  in  the  production  or  composition  of  it. 
He  might  have  given  his  whole  word  to  men,  everything 
that  he  intended  to  compose — his  whole  written  revelation — in 
some  such  way  as  he  gave  to  Moses  the  ten  commandments 
written  with  his  own  finger  upon  two  tables  of  stone.  But  he 
has  not  done  so.  He  has  thought  proper  to  employ  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  men  in  the  production  and  composition  of  his  word, 
and  to  employ  them  as  men — first,  as  rational  and  intelligent 


374 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


beings ;  second,  to  employ  as  his  instruments  men  like  ourselves, 
with  all  their  powers,  susceptibilities,  and  acquirements.  Thus 
every  portion  of  God’s  word  is  also  in  some  sense  man’s  word,  as 
it  has  all  passed  through  some  man’s  mind,  and  been  brought  in 
some  way  into  contact  with  his  faculties,  and  with  his  faculties 
in  exercise. 

These  general  considerations  (especially  the  two  positions  that 
the  Bible  though  God’s  word  was  produced  for  men  and  by 
men,  that  is,  for  the  instruction  of  men,  and  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  men,  which  might  easily  be  drawn  out  and  illustrated 
at  length)  seem  to  explain  why  the  Bible,  though  God’s  word,  is 
not  in  every  respect  as  to  its  general  aspect,  structure,  and 
language,  so  peculiar  and  extraordinary  as  some  might,  however 
unreasonably,  have  expected  the  word  of  God  to  be,  and  why 
there  is  so  much  about  it  that  is  human,  so  much  that  is  similar 
to  what  we  find  in  other  books,  so  much  that  indicates  man’s 
presence,  and  in  a  certain  sense  man’s  agency.  But  it  is  just  upon 
the  indications  of  man’s  presence,  and  in  some  sense  his  agency, 
found  in  the  Bible,  that  many  men  have  based  one  of  the  leading 
objections  against  the  doctrine  of  its  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 
There  is  no  question  that  the  human  authors  of  the  difierent 
books  of  Scripture  did  exercise  their  own  powers  and  faculties  in 
the  production  and  composition  of  them.  The  books  contain 
plain  traces  of  the  personal  individual  peculiarities  of  their 
authors  ;  they  exhibit  the  ordinary  diversities  of  style  and  manner 
which  we  can  discover  and  describe  in  the  productions  of  ordinary 
authors,  who  had  no  divine  assistance,  no  supernatural  direction. 
We  not  only  see  these  individual  peculiarities,  these  diversities  of 
style  and  manner  analogous  to  what  we  find  in  ordinary  authors ; 
but  just  as  in  the  case  of  ordinary  authors  we  can  sometimes  give 
some  natural,  I  mean  as  opposed  to  supernatural,  explanation  of 
them,  tracing  them  more  or  less  clearly  and  directly  to  their 
mental  constitution,  to  their  natural  temperament,  or  their 
acquired  knowledge  and  habits.  All  this  is  true,  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  It  is  a  real  feature  of  the  Bible  actually  attaching  to  it, 
and  intended  no  doubt  to  convey  to  us  some  information,  and  be 
a  legitimate  ground  for  certain  conclusions.  It  has  been  very 
confidently  alleged  that  one  of  those  legitimate  conclusions  is, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is 


OBJECTIONS. 


375 


false.  Does  then  the  fact  warrant  this  conclusion  ?  There  are 
some  obvious  considerations  which  form  strong  presumptions 
against  its  validity.  This  diversity  of  style  and  manner,  this 
exhibition  of  personal  individual  peculiarities,  pervades  the  whole 
Bible ;  and  therefore  if  it  afford  any  good  ground  for  excludiog 
verbal  inspiration,  it  would  seem  to  be  adequate  for  excluding  it 
from  the  whole  Bible  ;  while  yet  those  with  whom  we  are  arguing 
admit  that  much  of  the  Bible  was  inspired  even  as  to  the  words. 
Farther,  this  exhibition  of  the  personal  individual  peculiarities  of 
the  writers  is  not  confined  to  the  style  and  language,  but  may  be 
traced  also  in  their  habits  of  thought,  their  modes  of  conceiving 
of  and  viewing  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  The  matter  or 
thought  or  substance  is  admitted  to  have  been  all  given  by 
inspiration  of  God ;  and  if  in  this  which  was  inspired  we  can 
plainly  trace  the  personal  individual  peculiarities  of  the  writers,  it 
would  seem  that  the  similar  or  analogous  differences  of  the  style 
and  language  cannot  afford  any  satisfactory  proof  that  the  words 
were  not  also  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  seems  pretty  plain 
then  that  there  must  be  some  fallacy  in  this  objection,  even 
though  we  could  not  very  distinctly  point  it  out.  But  there  is 
really  no  great  difficulty  in  detecting  it.  The  objection  derives 
any  plausibility  it  has  from  a  virtual  assumption  of  this  position, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  employ  or  use  instru mentally  the 
personal  peculiarities  of  men’s  faculties,  habits,  and  acquirements 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  own  purposes  and  the  attainment 
of  his  own  ends.  Unless  this  be  asserted,  and  not  only  asserted 
but  proved,  the  objection  has  manifestly  no  foundation  to  rest 
upon ;  and  yet  surely  this  is  an  assertion  which  no  one  is  entitled 
to  make,  and  which  no  one  is  able  to  establish.  We  are  not 
called  upon  to  explain  in  what  way  the  Spirit  accommodated 
himself  to  the  powers,  capacities,  susceptibilities,  and  acquirements 
of  individual  men  in  producing  the  Scriptures,  so  as  to  make  use 
of  their  instrumentality.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  there  is  no 
impossibility  or  any  great  improbability  attaching  to  the  idea 
that  he  may  have  so  pervaded  and  guided  a  man  in  the  com¬ 
position  of  a  work  as  that,  while  his  ordinary  powers  and  capa¬ 
cities  were  not  superseded  or  put  entirely  in  abeyance,  but  left  in 
operation  so  as  to  exhibit  plain  traces  of  their  presence  and 
influence  upon  the  work  itself,  it  was  nevertheless  to  be  traced 


376 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


both  in  matter  and  in  manner,  both  in  substance  and  in  language, 
to  the  Spirit’s  agency.  The  impossibility  of  this  is  certainly  not 
by  any  means  self-evident ;  we  know  of  no  medium  of  proof  by 
which  its  impossibility  can  be  established,  no  contradiction  or 
absurdity  attaches  to  it.  There  is  nothing  about  the  supposition 
inconsistent  with  anything  we  know,  either  about  God  or  man. 
Nay,  it  cannot  be  shewn  that  any  great  degree  of  improbability 
attaches  to  it.  For  it  really  is  very  much  what  we  might  have 
expected  to  have  taken  place,  if  God  had  resolved  to  give  an 
accurate  and  perfect  revelation  of  his  will,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  make  use  of  the  instrumentality  of  rational  men  in  the  exercise 
and  possession  of  their  faculties  in  communicating  it  to  us  ;  and  it 
is  to  no  purpose  to  say  that  when  we  examine  the  Scriptures,  and 
notice  these  features  of  individuality  and  diversity  which  they 
present,  we  naturally,  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  infer  the  exercise 
and  the  influence  of  men’s  ordinary  powers  in  the  production  of 
the  books.  This  inference  is  sound,  and  we  fully  admit  it. 

A  further  inference,  however,  must  be  drawn  in  order  to  secure 
a  foundation  for  the  objection,  viz.  this,  that  since  men’s  natural 
powers  were  in  operation,  so  as  to  have  in  some  measure  affected 
the  character  of  the  product,  and  left  traces  of  their  influence  upon 
it,  therefore  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  possibly  have  been  making 
use  of  these  powers  and  faculties,  so  far  as  to  have  regulated  and 
determined  the  words  they  used.  This  inference  cannot  be  estab¬ 
lished,  and  therefore  the  objection  falls  to  the  ground  ;  for  you 
must  remember  that  we  are  not  now  in  the  position  of  just  opening 
the  Bible  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  merely  from  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  its  general  features,  and  without  any  other  or  previous 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  agency  of 
God  and  man  respectively  in  the  production  of  it ;  but  in  this  very 
different  position,  that  we  have  already  found  in  the  Bible  state¬ 
ments  which,  taken  in  their  natural,  obvious,  and  literal  meaning, 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  the  authors,  produced  the  words  as  well  as  the  matter 
of  Scripture ;  that  those  who  resist  this  conclusion  are  bound 
to  produce,  either  from  specific  statements  of  Scripture,  or  from 
general  features  attaching  to  it,  clear  positive  proof  that  this  doc¬ 
trine  of  verbal  inspiration  is  false,  and  that  all  that  we  are  bound 
to  do  in  dealing  with  their  arguments  or  objections,  is  to  shew 


OBJECTIONS. 


377 


that  they  are  inadequate  to  establish  this  position.  I  cannot  enter 
into  a  consideration  of  all  the  objections  that  have  been  adduced 
against  the  doctrine  of  a  plenary  verbal  inspiration.  Some  of 
them  are  cut  off  at  once,  and  shewn  to  be  wholly  irrelevant,  by  the 
observations  made  in  the  first  lecture  upon  this  subject  in  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  true  state  of  the  question,  and  of  the  real  meaning  and 
import  of  the  doctrine,  and  of  what  it  implies.  Some,  as  is  usual 
in  controversial  discussions,  are  founded  on  misconceptions  of  the 
views  and  arguments  held  and  employed  on  the  other  side,  and 
are  apt  to  suggest  to  the  mind  of  an  opponent  the  idea  of  unfair¬ 
ness,  or  of  inexcusable  inadvertence.  It  may  be  worth  while  to 
give  a  specimen  or  two  of  this  class  of  objections,  as  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  them  is  well  fitted  to  guard  against  error.  And  they  shall 
be  taken  from  authors  wdiose  general  character  is  highly  respect¬ 
able,  though  their  conduct  in  this  instance  can  scarcely  be  regarded 
as  fair  and  candid.  The  following  passage  occurs  in  Doddridge’s 
Dissertation  on  Inspiration,  which  is  subjoined  to  his  Commentary 
on  the  Books  of  the  Acts  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Netv  Testament, 
and  which  I  formerly  had  occasion  to  characterise  in  treating  of 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures  in  general.  It  is 
often  quoted  by  the  opponents  of  entire  verbal  inspiration,  and 
seems  to  be  regarded  by  them  as  containing  a  very  clever  hit  upon 
the  subject : — 

“  There  are  other  objections  (against  the  divine  origin  of  the  books  of 
Scripture)  of  a  quite  different  class,  with  which  I  have  no  concern,  as  thev 
affect  only  such  a  degree  of  inspiration  as  I  think  it  not  prudent,  and  I  am 
sure  it  is  not  necessary,  to  assert.  I  leave  them  therefore  to  be  answered  by 
those,  if  any  such  there  be,  who  imagine  that  Paul  would  need  an  immediate 
revelation  from  heaven,  and  a  miraculous  dictate  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
remind  Timothy  of  the  cloak  and  writings  which  he  left  at  Troas,  or  to 
advise  him  to  mingle  a  little  wine  with  his  water.’’ 

The  following  passage  of  a  similar  kind  occurs  in  Dr  John  Pye 
Smith’s  view  of  inspiration,  in  the  first  book  of  his  great  work, 
entitled  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah : — 

“Those  well-meaning  persons  who  think  they  have  proved  the  divine 
inspiration  of  a  particular  sentence,  such  as  1  Tim.  v.  23,  or  2  Tim.  iv.  13, 
(these  are  just  the  passages  so  facetiously  referred  to  by  Doddridge)  because 
their  pious  fertility  has  been  able  to  adduce  a  great  number  of  important 
religious  reflections  from  the  advice,  the  request,  the  motives,  or  the  implied 
circumstances  of  the  case,  are  committing  an  egregious  fallacy,  the  non  causa 


378 


TWENTY-NINTH  LECTURE, 


pro  causa.  Let  them  put  forth  the  same  efforts  upon  hundreds  of  sentences 
in  the  Apocrypha,  or  even  in  the  Greek  and  Koman  poets,  and  they  will 
bring  forth  volumes  of  excellent  moral  and  spiritual  observations.” 

Now,  both  these  passages  contain  very  discreditable  misrepresenta¬ 
tions  of  the  arguments  of  the  defenders  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 
We  do  not  lay  down  the  position,  as  Doddridge  insinuates,  that  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  needed  in  order  to  lead  Paul  to 
address  to  Timothy  the  request  and  the  advice  to  which  he  refers. 
Our  position  is  that  the  epistles  containing  these  passages  were 
all  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  we  prove  this  by  arguments 
which  are  applicable  to  the  whole  epistles  as  they  stand.  It  is 
our  opponents,  and  they  alone,  who  bring  in  the  idea  of  the 
necessity  or  non-necessity  of  inspiration  for  the  production  of  par¬ 
ticular  passages,  and  they  apply  their  own  notions  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject  as  the  test  of  whether  or  not  particular  passages  were  inspired. 
They  bring  forward  those  passages,  and  assert  that  no  inspiration 
was  needed  for  the  production  of  them,  and  that  therefore  they 
were  not  inspired.  This  is  their  argument,  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it  but  to  answer  it ;  and  we  do  answer  it,  not  as  Doddridge 
represents  the  matter,  by  asserting,  in  opposition  to  their  allega¬ 
tion,  that  inspiration  was  needed  for  the  production  of  these  pas¬ 
sages,  but  by  shewing  that  their  allegation  of  non-necessity  is 
altogether  irrelevant,  and  leaves  wholly  untouched  the  arguments 
by  which,  without  imitating  their  unwarrantable  presumption  in 
applying  the  test  of  necessity  or  non-necessity,  we  establish  the 
plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  whole  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to 
Timothy.  In  like  manner.  Dr  Pye  Smith  tells  us  that  there  are 
some  well-meaning  persons  who  think  they  have  proved  the 
inspiration  of  these  passages  because  they  are  able  to  educe  from 
them  important  religious  reflections,  and  he  warns  them  that  in 
employing  this  argument  they  are  committing  an  egregious  fal¬ 
lacy,  ih^non  causa  pro  causa.  Now,  this  appears  very  learned 
and  very  logical,  and  must  surely  demolish  those  well-meaning 
persons,  who  of  course  are  usually  very  weak !  But  the  truth 
is,  that  Dr  Smith  is  here  chargeable  with  a  very  unwar¬ 
rantable  misrepresentation  of  their  argument,  and  I  venture 
to  say  that  he  can  produce  no  evidence  that  even  the  weakest 
of  those  well-meaning  persons  ever  employed  the  argument  which 
he  has  presumed  to  put  into  their  mouth,  that  is,  ever  adduced  it 


OBJECTIONS. 


379 


as  a  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  these  passages,  that  important  reli¬ 
gious  reflections  might  be  educed  from  them.  It  is  true  that  in 
connection  with  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  they  have  shewn 
that  important  religious  reflections  might  be  educed  from  them ; 
but  they  have  not  advanced  this,  as  Dr  Smith  alleges,  as  a  ijroof 
that  they  are  inspired.  The  true  state  of  the  argument  is  this — 
We  prove  the  inspiration  of  these  passages  from  general  consider¬ 
ations  applicable  equally  and  alike  to  the  whole  epistles  which 
contain  them.  In  answer  to  these  general  considerations,  Dr  Smith 
and  his  friends  pounce  upon  these  particular  passages,  and  allege 
that  they  could  not  be  inspired  because  they  contain  nothing  valu¬ 
able  or  important,  nothing  fitted  to  convey  moral  and  religious 
instruction.  A  proper  and  formal  answer  to  this  objection  of  theirs 
is,  that  it  leaves  the  direct  proof  we  have  adduced  of  the  inspiration, 
of  the  whole  epistles  which  contain  these  passages  untouched  and 
unimpaired.  And  then,  after  having  thus  answered  the  objection, 
we  commonly  add  ex  ahundanti,  not  as  a  part  of  the  proper  argu¬ 
ment,  or  as  indispensable  to  it,  but  in  order  to  expose  the  blindness 
and  presumption  of  our  opponents,  and  to  vindicate  the  honour  of 
God’s  word,  that  these  passages  are  not  so  useless  as  Dr  Smith 
and  his  friends  allege.  And  we  prove  this  of  course  by  shewing 
that  they  are  fitted  to  suggest  some  important  reflections,  to  con¬ 
vey  some  useful  instruction.  It  must,  I  think,  be  evident  from 
this  statement  of  the  progress  and  connection  of  the  argument, 
that  Dr  Smith  has  here  misrepresented  the  defenders  of  verbal 
inspiration,  and  that  notwithstanding  his  parade  of  logic,  “  he 
commits  the  egregious  fallacy,”  to  use  his  own  language,  of  con¬ 
founding  a  direct  proof  in  support  of  our  position  with  the  answer 
we  give  to  the  objection  which  he  adduces  against  it. 

There  are,  however,  more  plausible  objections  against  the  entire 
verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture,  the  treatment  of  which  is  attended 
with  greater  difficulty,  and  these  we  must  now  proceed  to  advert  to. 


LECTURE  XXX. 


MAIN  OBJECTION  FROM  VERBAL  DIFFERENCES  IN  REPORTS 

OF  DISCOURSES -CARSON. 


By  far  the  most  plausible  objection  against  the  plenary  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  that  derived  from  the  verbal 
differences  in  the  Bible  narratives  of  the  same  event,  and  especially 
from  those  occurring  in  the  different  records  of  what  is  narrated 
as  having  been  spoken  upon  the  same  occasion  by  God  and  Christ, 
and  in  the  indications  given  by  some  of  the  authors  of  the  books 
of  human  infirmities  attaching  to  them  while  writing — i.e.  of 
some  measure  of  ignorance  and  uncertainty  as  existing  in  their 
minds  as  to  some  of  the  things  about  which  they  were  inspired  to 
write.  In  illustration  of  the  latter  part  of  this  objection,  it  is 
said  by  Dr  Hill,  in  his  Lectures,  part  ii.  chap,  i.,  in  arguing,  as  he 
does,  against  verbal  inspiration,  “  Paul  sometimes  discovers  a 
doubt  and  a  change  of  purpose  as  to  the  time  of  his  journeyings, 
and  other  little  incidents,  which  the  highest  degree  of  inspiration 
should  have  prevented.”  And  in  regard  to  the  first  part  of  the 
objection,  reference  is  often  made  in  support  of  it  to  the  accounts 
given  by  the  different  evangelists  of  the  discourses  of  our  Saviour, 
in  which,  while  there  is  a  substantial  harmony,  or  rather  identity, 
there  is  sometimes  a  plain  and  undeniable  verbal  discrepancy. 
The  objection  is  thus  put  by  Dr  Pye  Smith  :  “  The  doctrine  of 
verbal  inspiration  is  attended  with  extreme  difficulties.  For 
example,  in  two  or  three  of  the  evangelists,  we  often  find  the  same 
discourse  or  sentence  of  our  Lord  expressed  by  each  in  different 
words,  thouofh  with  the  same  ultimate  sense.  If  then  we  demand 
a  verbal  inspiration  so  as  to  give  the  exact  words  and  order  of 
words  spoken  by  Jesus,  in  any  one  of  these  cases  we  destroy  the 


OBJECTIONS. 


381 


possibility  with  respect  to  the  correspondent  passage.”  Now,  it 
cannot  be  disputed  that  here  there  is  a  real  difficulty,  which  it  is 
certainly  not  easy  to  explain,  which  perhaps  cannot  be  fully  and 
particularly  explained  ;  and  the  proper  question  to  be  answered 
in  dealing  with  it  is,  whether  it  be  merely  a  difficulty  attaching  to 
a  mysterious  subject,  which  is  to  a  large  extent  removed  beyond 
the  sphere  of  our  certain  knowledge,  but  which,  like  many  other 
analogous  difficulties  attaching  to  other  subjects,  affords  no  suffi¬ 
cient  ground  why  we  should  reject  the  evidence  on  which  the 
doctrine,  against  which  the  objection  seems  to  militate,  is  founded  ; 
or  whether  it  be  an  objection  of  such  a  kind  as  of  itself,  and  on 
the  ground  of  its  own  inherent  weight,  to  disprove  or  to  establish 
the  falsehood  of  the  doctrine  against  which  it  has  been  adduced. 
We  may  remark  that  the  second  part  of  the  objection,  referred  to 
in  the  extract  quoted  from  Dr  Hill,  founded  upon  the  apostle 
telling  us  of  his  ignorance  or  of  his  doubts  about  certain  matters 
of  fact,  past  or  future,  possesses  little  weight,  although  it  is  the 
principal  argument  founded  on  against  verbal  inspiration  by 
Whitby,  in  his  general  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Neiu 
Testament.  The  apostle  of  course  was  ignorant  or  uncertain 
concerning  these  points  at  the  time  when  he  wrote ;  the  Spirit 
did  not  at  the  time  reveal  them  to  him,  so  as  to  remove  all  ignor¬ 
ance  or  uncertainty  about  them  ;  and  Paul  merely  describes 
truly  his  actual  existing  state  of  knowledge  or  impression,  of 
recollection,  or  expectation.  That  the  Spirit  could  not  have  left 
him  in  ignorance  and  uncertainty  upon  the  points  referred  to,  and 
could  not  have  guided  and  controlled  him  in  describing  his  actual 
state  of  mind  at  the  time — and  on  an  assumption  of  this  the 
objection  is  based — is  a  position  which  is  certainly  not  self-evident, 
and  cannot  be  established.  If  ignorance  or  uncertainty  about 
some  of  these  matters  of  fact  was  not  inconsistent  with  his  enjoy¬ 
ing,  while  that  ignorance  and  uncertainty  lasted,  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  neither  was  it  inconsistent  with  his  being 
guided  and  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  telling  the  churches 
and  in  telling  us  the  actual  state  of  the  cuse.  The  same  general 
observation  applies  to  those  passages  in  which  the  apostle,  having 
been  compelled  by  the  calumnies  and  machinations  of  his  enemies 
to  set  forth  his  own  claims,  official  and  personal,  to  the  respect 
and  confidence  of  the  Corinthians,  gives  expression  at  the  same 


382 


THIRTIETH  LECTURE. 


time  to  those  feelings  of  ingenuous  shame,  and  of  something 
like  a  sense  of  degradation,  which  self-commendation,  even  though 
rendered  necessary  by  circumstances,  could  not  fail  to  call  forth  in 
the  mind  of  one  who  was  animated,  as  Paul  unquestionably  was, 
by  feelings  of  the  most  honourable  and  elevated  kind.  He  felt  as 
if  he  had  become  a  fool  in  glorying  or  boasting,  and  this  called 
forth  something  like  a  sense  of  degradation.  This  was  his  real 
feeling  at  the  time  ;  it  was  in  no  way  dishonourable  to  him,  and 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  Holy  Spirit  should  not  lead  him  to 
express  it,  and  guide  him  in  expressing  it.  The  apostles  stood  before 
men  in  their  writings,  as  well  as  in  their  oral  instructions,  in  all 
their  individuality,  as  men  possessed  of  personal  peculiarities  of 
character  and  dispositions  ;  and  it  was  on  many  accounts  right  and 
expedient  that  this  should  be  the  case.  But  this  affords  no 
evidence  that  they  were  not  under  the  thorough  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  We  cannot  doubt  that  the  apostles,  in  their  addresses 
before  kings  and  rulers,  indicated  and  expressed  the  feelings  they 
entertained  as  men  with  reference  to  their  own  conduct  and 
position  ;  and  yet  we  know  that  their  Master  promised  them,  and 
the  Spirit  conferred  upon  them  in  these  circumstances,  verbal 
inspiration. 

The  real  difficulty  however  lies  in  the  other  part  of  the  objec¬ 
tion,  the  verbal  differences  occurring  amid  substantial  harmony  in 
the  different  accounts  we  have  in  the  Evangelists  of  what  our 
Saviour  is  declared  to  have  said  upon  particular  occasions.  Could 
these  different  accounts  have  all  been  written  under  the  direction, 
even  as  to  the  words,  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Now,  in  considering 
this,  it  may  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  theories  which  have  been  invented,  professedly  for 
the  purpose  of  accounting  at  once  for  the  resemblances  and  the 
differences  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels,  by  supposing  that  the 
different  evangelists  copied  more  or  less  fully  from  each  other,  or 
that  they  copied  more  or  less  fully  and  correctly  from  some  original 
document  or  documents  now  lost,  but  to  which  they  had  access. 
The  different  theories  which  have  been  invented  upon  the  subject, 
and  on  which  a  good  deal  of  ingenuity  has  been  wasted,  especially 
in  Germany,  are  founded  upon  a  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Gospels ;  and  most  who  have  indulged  in  such  speculations  deny 
not  only  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Gospels,  but  their  inspira- 


OBJECTIONS. 


383 


tion  in  any  sense  or  to  any  extent.  Not  indeed  that  the  circum- 
staace  of  any  one  of  the  authors  of  Scripture  having  copied  from 
some  pre-existing  human  document,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  in 
any  instance  they  had  done  this,  would  disprove  even  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  their  work.  It  is  quite  possible  that  in  regard  to 
some  historical  subjects  there  might  be  documents  in  existence 
which  might  without  impropriety  form  a  portion  of  an  inspired 
history,  and  which  the  Holy  Spirit  might  guide  the  writers  to  copy 
and  insert  in  their  work,  adopting  it  as  their  own.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  inconsistent  even  with  verbal  inspiration  ;  but  it  is  mani¬ 
festly  inconsistent  with  inspiration  in  any  sense  to  suppose,  as  the 
inventors  of  these  theories  commonly  do,  that  the  authors  of  the 
Gospels  were  wholly  left  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  judgment 
and  discretion  in  the  use  they  made  of  previously  existing  docu¬ 
ments,  whether  these  were  the  Gospels  previously  published  or 
other  writings  to  which  the  authors  of  all  the  Gospels  had  access. 
The  difficulty  which  these  theories,  purely  conjectural,  and  resting 
upon  no  historical  evidence,  have  been  invented  to  explain,  is  the 
resemblance  that  obtains  among  the  different  Gospels,  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration  being  excluded  ;  whereas  the  difficulty  we  have  at 
present  to  contend  with  is  to  explain  if  possible  the  difference 
which  we  find  among  them,  the  doctrine  of  their  verbal  inspiration 
being  assumed ;  or,  if  we  cannot  fully  explain  it,  to  give  such 
explanations  regarding  it  as  to  shew  that  it  is  not  adequate  to  prove 
that  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  is  false.  Now,  the  main 
ground  which  is  taken  by  the  defenders  of  verbal  inspiration  in 
direct  answer  to  this  objection,  and  the  only  one,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  which  they  could  take,  is  this,  that  as  it  is  universally  allowed 
that  it  is  no  argument  against  the  truth  or  veracity  of  witnesses 
or  narrators,  that  their  accounts,  while  agreeing  in  substance,  should 
vary  somewhat  in  minute  details,  and  in  the  precise  words  in  which 
they  are  set  forth,  so  whatever  is  consistent  with  truth  and  veracity 
in  men,  when  left  to  the  unaided  exercise  of  their  faculties,  is  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  agency  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  as 
the  Spirit  had  resolved  to  employ  the  agency  of  men,  and  of  men 
in  the  exercise  of  their  natural  powers  and  faculties,  and  of  course 
must  be  supposed  to  have  in  some  measure  or  in  some  sense 
adapted  or  accommodated  himself  and  his  operation  to  these 
powers  or  faculties  of  theirs,  we  are  not  entitled  to  say  that  this 


384 


THIRTIETH  LECTURE. 


adaptation  or  accommodation  may  not  have  gone  so  far,  without 
affecting  the  reality  of  his  thorough  and  pervading  agency,  as  to 
have  left  room  for  whatever  diversity  in  their  narratives  was 
consistent  with  their  veracity  and  accuracy,  as  estimated  by  the 
principles  by  which  these  things  are  ordinarily  judged  of  among 
men.  This  principle  is  established  by  Mr  Carson  in  a  work 
formerly  referred  to,  viz.,  Theories  of  Inspiration  Reviewed,  &c., 
pp.  112-117,  and  90,  91. 

I  am  very  far  from  being  disposed  upon  this  occasion  to  speak 
with  the  same  confidence  as  he  does,  and  I  cannot  but  condemn 
the  tone  of  dogmatism  and  arrogance  with  which  he  has  treated 
a  subject  that  is  unquestionably  a  very  difficult  one;  but  I 
think  the  important  principle  which  he  has  developed,  and 
which,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  has  not  been  brought  forward  and 
expounded  so  fully  by  any  other  author,  is  a  sound  one,  and  that 
if  it  be  sound,  it  affords  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  objection. 

\  It  was  evidently,  as  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  remark, 
a  part  of  God’s  plan,  devised  and  executed  in  his  wisdom,  for 
conveying  to  men  a  revelation  of  his  will  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  men,  that  the  men  whom  he  employed  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  should  stand  out  before  those  to  whom  their  communications 
should  be  addressed,  as  men  possessed  of  the  ordinary  powers,  and 
exercising  the  ordinary  faculties,  of  men,  adducing  proofs  of  their 
divine  mission,  submitting  themselves  and  their  communications 
to  the  investigations  of  men’s  understanding,  exhibiting  and  refer¬ 
ring  to  every  ordinary  species  of  evidence  that  was  naturally  fitted 
to  impress  men’s  understandings  in  support  of  their  claims.  It 
was  evidently  designed  and  intended  that  the  first  preachers  of 
the  gospel  should  be  men  who  were  able  to  bear  their  own  per¬ 
sonal  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  leading  facts  on  which  the 
gospel  revelation  was  founded,  and  this  no  doubt  contributed  to 
lead  men  to  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  claims  which  they  put 
forth.  It  was  evidently  intended,  that  these  men,  in  their  whole 
character  and  deportment,  in  the  general  structure  and  complexion 
both  of  their  oral  instructions  and  of  their  writings,  should  exhibit 
every  mark  of  honesty  and  veracity,  everything  fitted  to  impress 
the  minds  of  men  who  heard  them  speak,  or  who  might  read  their 
writings,  with  the  belief  that  they  were  true  men,  who  honestly 
and  faithfully  related  what  they  had  seen  and  heard,  and  what 


OBJECTIONS. 


385 


they  had  been  instructed  to  communicate.  Now,  these  important 
purposes  which  the  oral  instructions  and  writings  of  the  apostles 
were  fitted  to  serve,  and  which  their  writings  continue  to  serve 
until  the  present  day,  could  not  have  been  effected  unless  in  tbe 
execution  of  their  commission,  whether  orally  or  by  writing,  they 
had  been  left  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  powers  and  faculties, 
and  to  the  manifestation  of  their  own  dispositions  and  habits,  and 
other  individual  and  personal  peculiarities.  They  could  not  have 
exhibited  so  fully  all  those  marks  of  integrity  and  veracity  which 
every  subsequent  age  has  delighted  to  trace  in  their  writings, 
unless  in  those  writings  they  had  left  traces  of  the  working  of 
their  own  minds,  and  of  their  own  personal  individuality  ;  unless 
these  writings  had  been  so  far  and  in  such  a  sense  theirs,  as  to 
admit  of  a  full  and  thorough  application  to  them  of  the  ordinary 
principles  by  which,  on  the  grounds  of  human  nature  and  experi¬ 
ence,  we  judge  of  the  integrity  of  men  and  the  truth  of  their  state¬ 
ments.  The  instructions  of  the  apostles  were  originally  addressed 
to  men  who  were  not  yet  convinced  of  the  truth  of  their  claims, 
and  who  of  course  needed  to  have  some  evidence  of  the  divinity  of 
their  mission  set  before  them.  Their  instructions  were  no  doubt 
regulated  by  the  Spirit,  in  some  measure  with  a  view  to  the  object 
of  impressing  the  minds  of  those  who  heard  them  with  a  convic¬ 
tion  of  their  integrity,  upon  grounds  similar  to  those  by  which  the 
integrity  of  men  is  usually  estimated.  The  same  holds  true  of 
their  writings.  They  come  usually  into  men’s  hands  before  they  are 
convinced  of  their  truth  and  authority,  or  at  least  before  they 
have  fully  investigated  their  claims ;  or,  at  any  rate,  men  are 
entitled  to  examine  them  and  to  investigate  their  claims  before 
they  submit  to  their  authority.  And  in  following  out  these  in¬ 
vestigations  in  an  exact  and  regular  way,  they  naturally  examine 
in  the  first  place  into  the  veracity  of  the  authors,  and  the  general 
truth  and  credibility  of  their  statements,  upon  the  ordinary  prin¬ 
ciples  derived  from  a  survey  of  human  nature  and  the  results  of 
experience,  which  are  applicable  to  such  a  question.  And  in  the 
process  of  the  investigation,  intelligent  and  impartial  inquirers 
will  find  many  clear  and  palpable  evidences  of  integrity  and  truth 
in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  which  could  not  have 
attached  to  them,  had  not  the  ordinary  faculties  and  other  per¬ 
sonal  peculiarities  of  tbe  men  been  exhibited  in  their  writings. 

2  B 


386 


THIRTIETH  LECTURE. 


In  judging  of  the  Gospels  by  the  ordinary  principles  applicable 
to  human  writings,  men  would  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
the  unimportant  differences  which  are  found  in  the  different  nar¬ 
ratives,  combined  as  they  are  with  substantial  and  pervading  har¬ 
mony,  not  only  afford  no  evidence  against  the  integrity  of  the 
authors  and  the  truth  of  their  statements,  but  rather  tend  to  con¬ 
firm  and  establish  them.  Now,  the  objection  which  we  are  con¬ 
sidering  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  these  advantages,  which 
all  admit,  and  which  all  are  ready  to  set  forth  and  to  illustrate, 
exclude  the  supposition,  if  not  of  all  inspiration,  as  the  Socinians 
allege,  at  least  of  any  such  inspiration  as  implies  that  the  Spirit 
guided  them  or  dictated  to  them  in  the  choice  of  the  words  they 
used.  It  is  not  alleged  by  the  defenders  of  verbal  inspiration  that 
from  an  examination  of  the  general  features  and  characteristics  of 
Scripture,  we  could  have  gathered  direct  proof  of  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion.  The  proof  of  this  is  founded  mainly  upon  information  given 
us  in  Scripture  statements,  which  treat  directly  and  explicitly  of 
this  point,  and  which,  understood  in  their  natural  obvious  sense, 
seem  very  plainly  to  tell  us  that  the  sacred  writings  were  inspired 
as  to  the  words  as  well  the  matter.  It  is  in  this  state  of  things 
that  the  objectors  come  in,  and  set  forth,  that  even  admitting  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  may,  for  the  important  purposes  above  referred  to, 
and  in  order  to  secure  the  advantages  which  have  been  above 
specified,  have  so  far  accommodated  himself  to  the  men  whose 
instrumentality  he  employed  as  to  have  left  them  to  such  an  exer¬ 
cise  of  their  ordinary  powers  and  faculties  as  produced  that  diver¬ 
sity  of  style  and  manner  which  we  see  in  the  different  books  of 
Scripture  ;  yet  that  if  he  really  so  influenced  them  as  to  determine 
the  words  they  used,  he  must  always  have  communicated  to  them 
the  same  precise  words,  when  they  professed  to  be  reporting  words 
used  upon  any  particular  occasion.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
necessarily  have  done  this — must  necessarily  have  exerted  his 
influence  in  this  way,  that  he  could  not  possibly  have  controlled 
and  directed  them  in  the  selection  of  the  words,  and  at  the  same- 
time  have  secured  the  advantages  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
result  from  the  partial  diversity,  combined  with  substantial  har¬ 
mony,  is  an  assertion  which  plainly  savours  of  presumption,  and 
which  could  be  warranted  only  by  a  more  thorough  knowledge  of 
the  Spirit’s  work,  of  the  possible  ways  of  his  influencing  the  minds 


OBJECTIONS. 


387 


of  men,  and  of  the  principles  by  which,  in  exerting  this  influence, 
he  must  be  guided,  than  we  have  any  certain  means  of  acquiring. 
Is  it  not  possible,  at  least,  that  the  principle  laid  down  by  Mr 
Carson  may  be  true  ?  Does  it  not  possess  a  considerable  measure 
of  plausibility  ?  If  human  instrumentality  was  to  be  employed  in 
this  matter,  and  if  men’s  ordinary  faculties  and  personal  indivi¬ 
duality  were  to  be  allowed  to  operate,  is  there  not  some  proba¬ 
bility  that  they  might  be  left  to  exhibit  the  ordinary  indications  of 
the  exercise  of  the  minds  of  upright  men  in  similar  circumstances  ? 
Are  we  quite  sure  that  the  Spirit  could  not  have  produced 
such  a  result  without  abandoning  that  entire  regulation  of  the 
words  they  used,  which  it  is  known  and  admitted  that  he  exercised 
in  regard  to  many  parts  of  Scripture  ?  Is  it  quite  certain  that  a 
diversity  in  the  words  employed,  which  would  not  have  afforded 
even  a  presumption  against  the  integrity  and  fidelity  of  the 
writers,  viewed  merely  as  men  exercising  their  ordinary  faculties, 
could  not  have  been  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  had  resolved 
to  use  the  instrumentality  of  men’s  faculties  in  this  matter,  and  to 
use  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  works  produced  contain 
plain  internal  evidences  of  their  integrity  and  veracity  as  men  ? 
We  think  that  this  is  not  certain  and  cannot  be  proved,  and  that 
the  opposite  supposition,  viz.,  the  consistency  of  the  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  different  evangelists,  with  such  a  diversity  in  their 
language  as  would  have  thrown  no  suspicion  upon  their  integrity 
and  accuracy  if  they  had  not  been  inspired,  is  not  only  possible, 
but  has  some  degree  of  probability  attaching  to  it.  But  if  it  be 
admitted  to  be  possible,  or  rather  if  it  cannot  be  proved  to  be 
impossible,  this  is  sufficient  to  make  it  fully  available  for  answer¬ 
ing  the  objection ;  for  the  objection  really  amounts  in  substance  to 
this  :  It  is  not  possible  to  reconcile  the  idea  of  the  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  different  evangelists  with  the  verbal  differences  in  their 
reports  of  the  same  discourses,  though  these  differences  would 
liave  been  quite  reconcileable  with  their  integrity  and  accuracy  as 
men,  if  a  claim  to  verbal  inspiration  had  not  been  set  up  on  behalf 
of  their  narratives.  And  it  is  enough  to  dispose  of  the  objection 
if  we  are  warranted  in  saying,  that  for  aught  we  know,  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  that  these  two  things  might  have  coexisted,  and  even  that 
this  alleged  impossibility  cannot  be  proved. 

This  principle  on  which  Mr  Carson  has  based  liis  answer  to 


388 


THIRTIETH  LECTURE. 


the  objection — the  principle,  viz*.,  that  whatever  is  consistent  with 
truth  and  integrity  on  the  part  of  the  writers,  viewed  simply  as 
men,  exercising  their  ordinary  powers,  is  or  may  be  also  con¬ 
sistent  with  their  having  been  under  the  thorough  guidance  of 
the  Spirit,  even  in  determining  the  words  they  used — can  scarcely 
be  said  to  have  yet  been  subjected  to  the  test  which  the  exami¬ 
nation  of  a  subject  by  a  variety  of  minds  usually  furnishes ;  but 
what  has  taken  place  historically  concerning  it  may  be  regarded 
as  affording  some  presumption  in  favour  of  its  soundness.  Since 
Mr  Carson’s  book  appeared  an  important  and  elaborate  work  on 
the  subject  of  inspiration  has  been  published  by  Dr  Henderson,  of 
Highbury  College,  containing  a  good  deal  that  is  valuable,  but 
decidedly  opposing  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration.  Though  he 
refers  occasionally  to  Mr  Carson’s  work  for  the  purpose  of  answer¬ 
ing  it,  yet,  in  regard  to  the  topic  we  are  now  considering.  Dr 
Henderson  just  repeats  Dr  Pye  Smith’s  objection,  without  ventur¬ 
ing  to  consider  Mr  Carson’s  answer  and  the  principle  on  which 
it  rests  ;  though  it  is  perfectly  manifest  that  if  the  principle  be  a 
sound  one,  it  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  objection.  This  work 
of  Dr  Henderson  called  forth  a  “Refutation”  from  Mr  Carson, 
characterised,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  by  the  same  appearance  of 
dogmatism  and  arrogance  as  his  former  work,  but  characterised 
also  by  the  same  acuteness  of  reasoning  and  the  same  masterly 
power  of  exposing  and  demolishing  sophistry.  As  there  is  one 
peculiar  feature  in  the  objection  to  which  Dr  Henderson  has 
given  great  prominence,  and  which  he  has  pressed  with  mnch 
plausibility,  as  Mr  Carson  had  not  very  fully  answered  it  in  his 
former  work,  and  as  it  tends  much  to  illustrate  the  whole  principle 
on  which  he  meets  the  difficulty,  we  feel  disposed  to  refer  you  to 
another  passage  contained  in  his  last  work  on  this  subject  (p.  122). 

I  have  referred  specially  to  Mr  Carson  upon  this  subject, 
because  really  the  argument  is  /iis,  and,  so  far  as  I  know  or 
recollect,  not  discussed  in  any  other  accessible  work  ;  because  I 
have  nothing  material  to  add  to  what  he  has  said  regarding  it, 
and  because  the  argument  could  not  be  put  more  clearly  or  more 
effectively  than  in  the  words  he  has  himself  employed. 


LECTURE  XXXI. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  PLENAEY  VEEBAL  INSPIRATION  FEOM 

1  COE.  VII.— DE  HILL. 


TX7E  had  occasion  formerly  to  hint  at  an  important  distinction 
^  '  in  the  kind  of  arguments  by  which  it  might  be  attempted 
to  be  shewn,  that  what  seems  to  be  the  natural,  obvious  meaning 
of  the  Scripture  testimony  in  support  of  the  verbal  inspiration 
of  the  whole  Bible,  might  be  overturned  or  evaded,  and  that  an 
interpretation  not.  sanctioning  verbal  inspiration  must  or  might  be 
put  upon  it.  Arguments  to  this  effect  might  be  deduced  from 
scriptural  statements,  if  such  there  were,  which  taught  us  plainly 
that  plenary  verbal  inspiration  was  not  a  quality  of  Scripture  ;  or 
they  might  be  founded  only  on  inferences  drawn  from  certain 
general  features  of  Scripture,  which  are  alleged  to  afford  materials 
for  enabling  us  to  reach,  by  a  process  of  ratiocination,  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  the  whole  Bible  was  not  verbally  inspired.  Arguments 
of  the  first  class  would  be  much  the  more  direct  and  satisfactory 
if  they  existed,  because  nothing  more  would  be  necessary  than 
just  to  ascertain  the  exact  meaning  of  scriptural  statements ; 
whereas,  in  regard  to  arguments  of  the  second  class,  there  may  be 
very  great  uncertainty  about  the  validity  of  the  inferences,  and  no 
clear  or  definite  standard  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  made  for 
ascertaining  this.  The  objections  against  the  plenary  verbal 
inspiration  of  Scripture  which  have  hitherto  been  considered, 
come  wholly  under  this  second  head  ;  and  even  in  the  brief  and 
hasty  notice  we  have  taken  of  them,  you  must  have  been  struck 
with  the  looseness  and  uncertainty  of  the  inferences  from  some 
general  features  or  properties  of  Scripture  on  which  they  are 
based,  you  must  have  been  impressed  with  the  conviction  that 


390 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


considerations  of  a  firmer  texture  are  necessary  in  order  to  require, 
or  even  to  warrant,  a  deviation  from  the  literal,  obvious  meaning 
of  a  scriptural  declaration.  If  any  passage  of  Scripture  could  be 
produced  which,  when  its  meaning  was  ascertained,  was  found  to 
convey  directly,  or  by  necessary  consequence,  to  us  the  informa¬ 
tion  that  the  whole  Bible  was  not  verbally  inspired,  or  that  in 
some  parts  of  it  the  authors  were  left  to  the  unaided  exercise  of 
their  own  faculties  for  the  words,  at  least,  which  they  used,  this 
might  require  us  to  modify  our  interpretation  of  those  passages 
which  seem  to  assert  verbal  inspiration,  upon  the  ground  of  the 
obvious  and  reasonable  principle  applicable  to  the  Scriptures  in 
common  with  all  other  writings — viz.,  that  they  ought,  if  possible, 
to  be  interpreted  so  as  to  be  self-consistent.  This  is  a  legitimate 
process  when  there  are  materials  in  Scripture  for  carrying  it 
through  in  regard  to  any  particular  topic,  and  one  on  which  more 
reliance  may  be  reasonably  placed  than  in  mere  general  inferences 
from  certain  features  or  qualities  of  Scripture,  as  distinguished 
from  particular  statements  which  must  have  been  intended  to  give 
us,  when  their  meaning  is  rightly  ascertained,  sound  inforniation 
on  the  subject  of  which  they  treat.  The  opponents  of  plenary 
verbal  inspiration,  while  dealing  largely  in  inferences  deduced  by 
man’s  reason  in  the  way  of  argument  from  certain  general  features 
of  the  Bible,  do  not  allege  that  there  is  any  actual  statement  of 
Scripture  which  tells  us,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  directly  or  by  implica¬ 
tion,  that  the  whole  Bible  was  not  verbally  inspired.  But  some  of 
them  have  alleged  that  we  have  in  Scripture  an  explicit  warrant 
for  believing  what  amounts  in  substance  to  the  same  thing  ;  that 
some  statements  contained  in  the  Bible  were  not  given  by  inspira¬ 
tion  of  God ;  and  as  an  instance  of  this,  they  refer  to  certain 
declarations  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  his 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  they  say  he  tells  us 
that  some  statements  which  form  part  of  that  chapter,  did  not 
proceed  from  immediate  divine  influence,  but  merely  from  himself. 
This  argument  is  not  brought  forward  by  Dr  Pye  Smith  or  Dr 
Henderson,  but  it  is  adduced  by  Dr  Hill  in  his  Lectures  as  an 
argument  against  verbal  inspiration.  He  puts  it  in  this  way  : — 

“  Paul,  in  some  instances,  makes  a  distinction  between  the  counsels  which 
he  gives  in  matters  of  indifference  upon  his  own  judgment,  and  the  com¬ 
mandments  which  he  delivered  with  the  authority  of  an  apostle.  ‘  I  speak 


1  COR,  YII. 


391 


this  by  permission,  and  not  of  commandment.’  ‘  This  1  command,  yet  not  I, 
but  the  Lord,’  a  distinction,  he  adds,  for  which  there  would  have  been  no 
room  had  every  word  been  dictated  by  the  inspiration  of  God”  (book  ii. 
chap.  i.  p.  369). 

Now,  in  this  sentence  there  is  both  confusion  of  thought,  and 
misapprehension  of  the  meaning  and  import  of  the  apostle’s  state¬ 
ments.  If  Paul  had  indeed  received  no  communication  from  the 
Spirit  as  to  the  way  in  which  a  question  that  had  been  proposed  to 
him  should  be  answered,  he  might  have  stated  this  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
and  he  might  have  been  guided  even  as  to  the  words  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  stating  it.  There  is  nothing  in  this  at  all  inconsistent 
with  verbal  inspiration.  We  had  occasion  formerly  to  refer  to 
some  of  those  instances  in  which  Paul  in  his  epistles  professes 
that  he  was  at  the  time  in  a  state  of  ignorance  or  doubt  as  to 
certain  matters  of  fact  to  which  he  was  called  upon  to  advert,  and 
we  shewed  you  that  this  being  his  actual  state  of  mind  con¬ 
cerning  these  points,  there  was  no  reason  why  he  should  not 
describe  it  as  it  was,  and  no  reason  why  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
not  direct  him  in  describing  it.  So  here  in  the  case  before  us,  if 
the  apostle  had  indeed  received  no  divine  communication  concern¬ 
ing  a  particular  point  submitted  to  him  for  decision  or  advice,  he 
might  tell  the  churches  this,  and  the  Spirit,  for  anything  we  know 
either  from  Scripture  or  the  nature  of  the  case,  might  direct  and 
guide  him  even  as  to  the  words  to  be  employed  in  telling  it.  The 
apostle  however  might  have  to  tell  them,  not  merely  that  he  had 
received  no  divine  communication  to  make  to  them  on  the  point 
in  question,  but  also  moreover  that  it  was  a  point  in  regard  to 
which  no  divine  authoritative  decision  had  been  or  was  to  be 
given,  with  respect  to  which  God  did  not  impose  upon  them  any 
positive  obligation  or  commandment,  but  which  he  left  as  a 
matter  to  be  determined  by  themselves  in  the  exercise  of  their 
own  judgment  according  to  circumstances.  This  too  he  might 
state  upon  God’s  authority,  and  he  might  be  plenarily  inspired  in 
stating  it,  or  directed  and  guided  by  the  Spirit  even  as  to  the 
words  employed  in  stating  it.  It  is  plain  from  the  words  used  by 
Hr  Hill  in  stating  this  objection,  as  well  as  from  another  objection 
which  he  adduces  against  verbal  inspiration,  and  which  we  formerly 
considered,  that  he  regarded  any  statement  of  the  apostle  inti¬ 
mating  that  he  was  at  the  time  in  any  measure  ignorant  or 


392 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


uncertain  about  anything  of  which  he  wrote,  as  affording  of  itself  a 
proof  that  he  was  not  guided  by  the  Spirit  in  what  he  did  write 
concerning  it ;  a  notion  which  evidently  proceeds  from  a  confusion 
of  thought  upon  the  subject,  and  which,  if  it  were  really  solid  and 
well-founded,would  do  something  more  than  disprove  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion — the  only  purpose  for  which  Dr  Hill  adduces  it — would  prove 
that  in  these  passages  he  was  not  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit 
as  to  the  thoughts  or  sentiments  any  more  than  as  to  the  words. 

It  is  quite  possible,  however,  that  the  apostle,  after  stating  that 
he  had  received  no  divine  communication  deciding  the  point  on 
which  he  had  been  consulted,  and  after  stating  moreover  that  the 
point  was  one  on  which  God  gave  no  commandment  or  authori¬ 
tative  judgment,  but  which  was  left  open  as  a  matter  which  they 
were  at  liberty  to  decide  for  themselves,  might  go  on  to  give  them 
his  own  opinion  upon  the  subject  simply  as  a  Christian  and  a 
pastor,  and  not  as  an  inspired  apostle,  exercising  merely  the 
liberty  of  judgment  which  God  permitted  to  them,  and  which, 
from  the  footing  on  which  God  had  left  the  matter,  they  might 
still  lawfully  exercise,  even  after  the  apostle  had  given  his  opinion 
on  it  as  a  Christian  and  a  pastor.  This  is  quite  possible,  and  if 
he  did  so,  and  told  us  expressly  that  he  was  doing  so,  why  then 
there  would  be  good  ground  for  the  inference  that  the  words  in 
which  the  opinion  given  in  such  circumstances  was  expressed 
were  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Dr  Hill  evidently 
supposed  that  this  was  the  actual  state  of  the  case  in  regard  to 
some  of  the  statements  contained  in  this  chapter.  Now  let  us 
suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  this  was  the  actual  state 
of  the  case,  and  let  us  consider  what  conclusions  result  from  it. 
One  conclusion  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  statements  referred  to, 
containing  merely  the  apostle’s  opinion,  were  not  inspired  by  the 
Spirit  in  regard  to  the  sentiments  any  more  than  in  regard  to  the 
words.  There  can  be  no  possible  ground  for  excluding  the 
inspiring  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  regard  to  the  one  which  does 
not  equally  apply  to  the  other ;  and  it  is  therefore  unreasonable 
to  adduce  this  as  a  proof,  as  Dr  Hill  does,  against  the  idea  “  that 
every  word  had  been  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God.”  It  may  be 
a  good  argument,  so  far  as  it  applies,  in  the  hands  of  Socinians, 
who  deny  inspiration  altogether,  but  those  who,  like  Dr  Hill, 
admit  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  matter  or  sentiment  of  the 


1  COR.  VII. 


393 


Scripture,  and  profess  merely  to  object  to  the  plenary  verbal 
inspiration,  cannot  in  sound  reasoning  derive  from  it  any  advan¬ 
tage,  or  make  it  at  all  available  for  their  purpose.  It  would  also 
seem  a  fair  inference  that  if,  upon  the  ground  supposed,  we  are 
to  exclude  inspiration  in  those  passages  where  the  apostle  has 
expressly  told  us  that  he  was  not  speaking  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  should  admit  and  acknowledge  his 
inspiration  everywhere  else,  when  he  has  given  no  such  inti¬ 
mation.  Some  indeed  have  alleged  that  we  should  admit  inspira¬ 
tion  only  when  and  where  the  sacred  writers  have  expressly 
claimed  it.  But  this  notion,  not  to  mention  other  grounds  by 
which  it  might  be  refuted,  plainly  proceeds  upon  the  assumption 
that  we  have  no  direct  and  positive  proof  of  inspiration  as  appli¬ 
cable  to  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole,  and  that  the  question,  so  far 
as  any  proof  of  that  sort  is  concerned,  is  quite  open ;  whereas  we 
have  shewn  you  that  we  have  positive  proof  of  the  plenary  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  Bible,  proof  which  will  require  very  strong 
and  conclusive  evidence  to  invalidate  it.  This  notion  which  we 
are  considering  comes  up  merely  in  the  shape  of  an  objection  to 
this  proof,  and  the  doctrine  which  rests  upon  it,  and  therefore 
we  are  entitled  to  say  that,  even  if  the  fact,  admitted  as  a  fact 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  proves  that  these  particular  passages 
were  not  inspired,  it  leaves  the  direct  and  positive  proof  of 
inspiration  as  applicable  to  all  the  rest  of  the  Bible  untouched  ;  so 
that,  even  if  we  were  to  admit  Dr  Hill’s  view  of  the  meaning  and 
import  of  certain  statements  here  made  by  the  apostle  to  be 
correct,  it  affords  no  ground  whatever  for  any  conclusion  bearing 
upon  the  distinction  between  the  inspiration  of  thought  and  of 
words,  the  only  purpose  to  which  Dr  Hill  applies  it ;  and  even  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  reject  this  distinction  and  deny  inspiration 
altogether,  it  affords  no  ground  for  denying  or  doubting  the 
inspiration  of  any  part  of  the  Bible  except  the  particular  passages 
specified. 

But  the  most  important  question  is  this,  does  the  apostle  here, 
as  Dr  Hill  alleges,  distinguish  between  the  counsels  he  gives  in 
matters  of  indifference  upon  his  own  judgment,  and  the  command¬ 
ments  which  he  delivered  with  the  authority  of  an  apostle  ? —  in 
other  words,  are  there  any  statements  contained  in  this  chapter 
which  are  declared  by  the  apostle  to  be  merely  the  expression  of 


394 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


Lis  own  opinion,  and  not  uttered  in  the  exercise  of  his  apostolic 
authority,  and  under  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Spirit  ? 
Dr  Hill  seems  to  assume  this  as  a  position  clear  and  undeniable,  one 
that  required  no  proof ;  and  yet  it  has  been  disputed  and  disproved 
even  by  men  who  are  opposed  to  entire  verbal  inspiration. 
Whitby,  for  example,  in  his  general  preface  formerly  referred  to, 
reasons  ably  and  conclusively  against  it,  seeing  clearly,  what  Dr 
Hill  did  not  see,  though  it  is  abundantly  evident,  viz.,  that  if  it 
proves  anything  bearing  upon  this  question  of  inspiration,  it 
proves  that  the  thoughts  in  these  passages  were  no  more  inspired 
than  the  words.  The  first  passage  quoted  by  Dr  Hill,  and  the 
first  occurring  in  the  chapter  bearing  upon  this  subject,  is  the  sixth 
verse,  “  But  I  speak  this  by  permission,  and  not  of  command¬ 
ment.’"  Dr  Hill  evidently  understood  this  as  meaning  that  the 
statement  here  referred  to,  the  apostle  was  permitted  by  the  Spirit, 
but  not  commanded  to  make,  and  he  infers  from  this  that  the 
statement  was  wholly  Paul’s  own,  and  was  not  to  be  tiaced  to  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit.  Now,  not  to  advert  again  to  the  invalidity 
of  this  inference,  let  us  see  whether  this  be  really  the  meaning  of 
the  statement.  The  words  are  not  very  happily  translated  in  our 
version.  The  word  translated  ‘"by  ”  before  permission ”  is, in  the 
original,  the  same  as  that  translated  of”  before  “  commandment;” 
in  both  cases  it  is  the  preposition  xara,  and  it  seems  pretty  evi¬ 
dent  that  the  use  of  the  word  by  ”  in  our  translation  has  tended 
to  foster  the  idea  that  the  apostle  here  declares  that  he  was  per¬ 
mitted,  though  not  commanded,  to  make  this  statement,  while  his 
real  meaning  is,  that  in  the  statement  he  had  made,  he  was  giving  a 
permission  and  not  imposing  a  commandment.  The  words  auy'yvoo^ccri 
and  are  well  enough  translated  permission  and  command¬ 

ment,  though  it  ought  to  be  remarked  that  the  precise  meaning 
of  ouy'yvoj/xTj  would  be  rather  more  correctly  expressed  by  the  Eng¬ 
lish  word  concession.  The  word  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  concession  or  indulgence  is  its  ordinary  usual 
meaning  in  the  Greek  language,  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
why  it  should  not  be  understood  in  this  sense  here.  The  literal 
version  of  the  words  then  is,  I  speak  this  according  to  conces¬ 
sion,  and  not  according  to  commandment,”  and  the  context  and 
scope  of  the  passage  clearly  and  unequivocally  determines  that  this 
means  not,  I  speak  this  because  I  am  permitted  though  not  com- 


1  COR.  VII. 


395 


manded  to  speak  it,  hut  I  speak  this  in  the  way  of  concession  not 
of  commandment,  i.e.  speaking  this  I  am  declaring  or  intimating 
a  permission  or  concession  that  is  left  or  granted  to  you,  and  not 
imposing  a  commandment  which  you  are  bound  to  obey. 

We  have  said  that  the  context  and  scope  of  the  passage  deter¬ 
mine  in  favour  of  this  meaning ;  but  we  ought  first  to  observe  that 
even  the  words  themselves,  independently  of  the  context,  are  rather 
more  favourable  to  this  meaning  than  to  the  other  ;  more 

properly  signifies  concession  or  indulgence  than  permission,  and  this 
circumstance  favours  the  meaning  we  have  attached  to  them,  and 
although  xar’  iTtirayriv  might  mean,  and  does  mean  in  some  passages 
of  the  new  Testament,  in  accordance  with  a  commandment  received 
from  God,  yet  we  have  in  Paul’s  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
a  passage  evidently  parallel  to  this,  where  we  have  not  only  the 
words  xar’  WiTayTjv,  but  the  whole  phrase  here  employed  by  the 
apostle,  ou  Y.aT  'i'airayviv  Xeyw,  and  then  it  undoubtedly  means  :  “  I 
do  not  speak  in  the  way  of  imposing  a  commandment,”  and  not,  I 
do  not  speak  in  accordance  with  a  commandment  given  to  me. 
The  passage  is — “  I  speak  not  by  commandment,  but  by  occasion 
of  the  forwardness  of  others,  and  to  prove  the  sincerity  of  your 
love  ”  (2  Cor.  viii.  8).  Here  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  apostle 
meant  to  tell  them  that  in  what  he  had  said  before  in  enforc¬ 
ing  upon  them  liberality,  and  especially  in  urging  them  to  complete 
the  collection  they  had  begun  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,  he 
was  not  imposing  upon  them  an  express  duty  commanded  of  God, 
but  merely  stirring  them  up  to  do  what  would  greatly  redound  to 
both  their  credit  among  the  churches,  and  be  a  gratifying  evidence 
to  him  and  to  themselves  of  their  real  attachment  to  Christ  and  to 
his  people.  As  this  is  the  only  other  case  where  the  whole  phrase 
oh  xar  i<7:nayriv  Xsyoo  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  it  affords  a  very 
strong  presumption  that  its  meaning  is  the  same  in  the  passage 
before  us,  and  there  is,  as  I  have  said,  quite  enough  in  the  con¬ 
text  to  establish  all  this.  The  substance  of  what  the  apostle  lays 
down  upon  one  of  the  points  upon  which  he  had  been  consulted 
was  this,  that  he  had  no  instructions  to  impose  upom  them  any 
express  injunction  or  obligation  in  regard  to  it ;  that  God  left 
them  at  liberty  to  marry  or  not  as  they  saw  cause,  or  as  they 
thought  most  expedient  for  promoting  their  spiritual  welfare. 
This  was  God’s  decision  upon  the  question,  to  impose  upon  them 


396 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


no  commandment,  but  to  concede  to  them  the  liberty  of  doing  in 
the  matter  what  they  thought  best. 

The  apostle  laid  down  some  things  in  regard  to  marriage  as  duties, 
matters  of  obligation,  and  imposed  them  by  his  apostolic  autho¬ 
rity;  but  in  regard  to  the  question  whether  they  should  marry  or 
not,  he  had  no  commandment  to  give  them,  but  was  instructed 
to  intimate  that  upon  this  point  it  was  permitted  or  conceded  to 
them  to  decide  for  themselves.  This  is  the  sense  to  which  the 
general  scope  of  the  passage  naturally  leads,  and  there  is  nothing 
said  in  this  part  of  the  chapter  which  affords  any  ground  for  doubt¬ 
ing  that  he  was  just  as  fully  instructed  and  commanded  of  God  to 
intimate  that  this  point  was  ultimately  and  authoritatively  settled 
in  the  way  of  granting  a  permission  or  concession  to  men  to 
marry  or  not,  as  to  lay  down  those  things  which  he  imposed  as 
positive,  commanded  duties.  There  is  nothing  here  then  in  the 
way  of  distinguishing  between  a  counsel  and  a  command,  nothing 
that  implies  that  what  the  apostle  said  upon  this  point  proceeded 
only  from  himself,  that  it  was  merely  permitted  by  the  Spirit,  but 
not  commanded  by  him.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  Dr  Hill  is 
the  tenth  verse,  “And  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet  not  I  but 
the  Lord,  let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her  husband ;  ”  and  this 
should  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  twelfth  verse,  “  But  to  the 
rest  speak  T,  not  the  Lord,  if  any  brother  hath  a  wife  that  believeth 
not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not  put  her 
away.^’  The  question  here  is,  what  is  the  real  nature  of  the  dis¬ 
tinction  thus  indicated  as  to  the  origin  or  the  authority  of  these 
two  commands  or  injunctions  ?  Dr  Hill  evidently  supposes  that 
the  one  which  came  not  from  Paul,  but  the  Lord,  rested  upon 
divine  authority,  and  was  communicated  to  Paul  by  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Spirit ;  while  the  other,  which  came  from  Paul  and  not 
the  Lord,  had  no  divine  authority  to  rest  upon,  but  was  merely 
Paul’s  own  judgment  or  opinion  as  a  Christian  or  a  pastor. 
That  this  latter  notion  is  correct  is  in  the  highest  degree 

O  O 

improbable.  The  point  decided  in  the  twelfth  verse,  when  Paul 
said,  “  I  speak,  not  the  Lord,”  was  one  of  great  practical  import-  . 
ance,  manifestly  a  question  of  principle,  viz.,  whether  or  not  a 
man  who  had  been  converted  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel  after 
his  marriage,  should  put  away  his  wife,  who  still  continued  a 
heathen.  It  was  evidently  indispensable  that  this  question  should 


1  COR.  VII. 


397 


be  settled,  and  settled  authoritatively  and  conclusively;  and 
accordingly  the  apostle  decides  it,  and  after  deciding  it,  shews 
in  the  fourteenth  verse  that  important  religious  principles  were 
connected  with  it.  In  a  preceding  part  of  this  epistle  (ii.  1 6) 
Paul  had  declared  absolutely,  and'  without  limitation,  “We 
have  the  mind  of  Christ,”  and  in  a  subsequent  part  of  it  (xiv.  87) 
“  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him 
acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Lord.”  Surely  it  would  require  statements 
that  cannot  fairly  be  explained  in  any  other  sense  to  entitle  us  to 
deny  that  anything  in  this  epistle  which  contains  such  declara¬ 
tions  as  these,  was  not  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  did  not 
rest  upon  divine  authority.  But  it  is  said,  what  other  meaning 
can  be  assigned  to  these  statements  ?  Is  it  not  said  in  the  one 
case,  “  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord,”  and  in  the  other,  “  I 
speak,  not  the  Lord.”  But  there  is  a  very  obvious  and  satisfactory 
way  of  explaining  the  distinction  in  full  accordance  with  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  deliverance 
in  the  twelfth  verse,  introduced  by  the  second  of  these  forms  of 
expression,  and  it  is  so  obvious  and  satisfactory  as  to  afford,  when 
viewed  in  connection  with  the  grounds  we  have  already  adduced 
in  support  of  the  necessity  of  holding  the  second  as  well  as  the 
first  of  these  deliverances,  the  twelfth  verse  as  well  as  the  tenth, 
to  be  based  upon  divine  authority,  sufficient  proof  that  it  is  the 
true  exposition  of  the  distinction.  When  the  apostle  in  the  tenth 
verse  says,  “  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord,”  he  refers  to  the 
fact  that  Christ  the  Lord  had  distinctly  and  explicitly  settled  this 
point  himself  by  laying  down  the  principle  that  it  was  not  lawful 
for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  except  for  adultery,  his  deliverance 
upon  this  point  being  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  both  in  his  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  and  in  the  account  of  his  answer  to  the  question 
of  the  Pharisees,  “  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  ?  ” 
Whereas,  upon  the  other  points  introduced  in  the  twelfth  verse, 
the  Lord  had  not  given  any  deliverance  while  he  tabernacled 
upon  earth.  Paul  therefore  could  not  appeal  to  his  authority  in 
this  case  as  in  the  former,  but  he  now  decided  it  himself  in  the 
exercise  of  his  apostolic  authority,  and  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  interpretation  fully  explains  and  accounts  for 
the  distinction  which  the  apostle  made  between  the  Lord  and 


398 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


himself,  without  the  supposition  that  in  the  twelfth  verse  he  was 
merely  giving  his  own  opinion  without  having  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit;  there  is  nothing  either  in  the  words  or  in  the  scope  of  the 
passage  which  makes  it  in  the  least  improbable,  and  therefore  upon 
the  grounds  already  adduced,  as  making  some  such  explanation 
of  the  distinction  imperatively  necessary,  if  the  words  could  at  all 
admit  of  it,  this  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  true  meaning  of  the 
passage.  We  have  not  yet  then  found  any  disclaiming  of  inspira¬ 
tion  by  the  apostle,  any  ground  whatever  for  believing  that  he 
here  merely  expressed  his  own  opinion,  the  result  of  his  own 
reflections,  without  enjoying  the  immediate  and  supernatural 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Dr  Hill  quotes  nothing  more,  and 
of  course  has  not  produced  any  evidence  in  support  of  the  objec¬ 
tion  which  he  here  advances  against  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 

There  is,  however,  a  subsequent  passage  in  this  chapter  whicli 
affords  fully  as  plausible  a  ground  for  the  objection  as  those  which 
lie  has  quoted.  In  the  twenty-fifth  verse  the  apostle  returns  to 
the  subject  of  marrying  or  not  marrying,  and  makes  the  following 
statement  regarding  it : — Now  concerning  virgins  I  have  no  com¬ 
mandment  of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judgment,  as  one  that  hath 
obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.”  This  may  seem  to 
imply  that  he  was  here  merely  giving  his  opinion  as  an  ordinary 
uninspired  man.  But  the  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  this,  and 
the  general  scope  of  the  passage  is  opposed  to  it.  The  apostle 
tells  them  again,  as  he  had  done  in  the  early  part  of  the  chapter, 
that  upon  the  question  of  marrying  or  not  marrying  he  had  no 
commandment  from  God  to  impose  upon  them,  that  in  this  matter 
it  was  permitted  or  conceded  to  them  to  act  according  to  their  own 
judgment.  The  subject  was  one  that  did  not  admit  of  command- 
.  merit,  and  in  regard  to  which  no  positive  injunction  that  was 
binding  upon  individuals  w^as  or  could  be  given.  The  apostle 
however  gave  them  his  judgment  upon  the  subject  to  this  effect, 
that  though  it  was  perfectly  lawful  for  any  of  them  to  marry  if  he 
chose,  yet  that  in  the  condition  in  which  the  church  was  then 
placed  they  should  rather  lean  to  the  side  of  not  marrying.  Now, 
the  question  is,  was  the  judgment  he  gave  to  this  effect  the  result 
merely  of  his  own  unaided  reflections,  or  was  he  guided  in  forming 
and  expressing  it  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  From 
the  nature  of  the  case  it  could  not  be  anything  but  a  judgment  or 


1  COR.  VII. 


399 


advice,  whether  it  came  from  Paul  alone  or  from  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  that  its  being  a  judgment,  as  distinguished  from  a  command, 
indicates  nothing  whatever  as  to  its  origin  or  authority.  He  gave 
it  as  the  judgment  of  one  “who  had  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord 
to  be  faithful.”  This  plainly  enough  implies  that  he  gave  this 
judgment  as  an  apostle  in  the  faithfu.1  execution  of  his  apostolic 
commission,  and  of  course  under  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the 
Spirit  whom  Christ  promised  to  his  apostles.  He  gave  it  as  one 
who  had  obtained  mercy  to  be  faithful,  i.e.  who  was  graciously 
enabled  by  God  to  be  faithful  to  the  trust  committed  to  him  as  an 
inspired  teacher.  W e  find  Paul  frequently  speaking  of  the  mercy 
or  grace  of  God  as  manifested  towards  him  in  putting  him  into  the 
apostleship,  and  enabling  him  to  discharge  its  duties.  He  tells  us 
that  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God  had  been  committed 
to  his  trust,  and  the  Lord  counted  him  faithful.  When  he  here 
thus  speaks  of  his  judgment  as  that  of  one  who  was  enabled  to  be 
faithful,  this  naturally  suggests  the  idea  that  he  delivered  it  as  a 
steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  as  one  who  enjoyed  in  this  matter 
supernatural  communications  of  divine  grace,  and  who  acted  under 
their  influence  ;  and  there  is  nothing  whatever  either  in  the  words 
or  in  the  context  that  aflPords  any  argument  against  this  interpre¬ 
tation.  In  the  fortieth  verse  the  apostle  sums  up  the  whole  matter 
in  these  words  But  she  is  happier  if  she  so  abide  {i.e.  abstain 
from  marrying),  after  my  judgment :  and  I  think  also  that  I  have 
the  Spirit  of  God.”  Hoes  this  imply  that  the  apostle  was  uncer¬ 
tain  and  unable  to  decide  whether  this  judgment  was  given  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God  or  not  ?  This  is  a  notion  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable,  and  one  which  if  true  would  be  attended 
with  serious  and  alarming  consequences.  If  the  apostles  were  not 
themselves  sure  whether  or  not  they  were  on  any  occasion  acting 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  deprived  of  any  certain 
ground  for  our  faith.  But  it  can  be  easily  proved  that  according 
to  the  usage  of  language  the  word  here  used  does  not  neces¬ 
sarily  imply  anything  of  doubt  or  uncertainty,  but  is  frequently 
employed,  when  an  explicit  assertion  or  firm  persuasion  is 
intended  to  be  expressed.  This  is  fully  proved  in  Whitby’s  note 
upon  the  passage,  who  also  suggests,  and  the  idea  is  a  very  pro¬ 
bable  one,  and  had  indeed  previously  received  the  sanction  of 
Calvin,  that  the  apostle  adopted  this  phraseology  boxM  h  xayo) 


400 


THIRTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


instead  of  %ayoi  lyo),  because  of  the  doubts  which  some  of  the 
Corinthians  entertained  of  his  apostolic  authority,  as  if  he  had 
said,  “  This  is  my  judgment,  and  whatever  some  of  you  may  think, 
or  my  enemies  may  allege,  I  am  pretty  confident  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  directed  me  in  forming  and  expressing  it/'  Calvin 
indeed  says  that  there  seemed  to  be  something  ironical  in  his  using 
this  expression. — Non  tamen  videtur  ironia  car  ere  quod  dicit 
Existimo,  nam  quum  pseudo-apostoli,  Spiritum  Dei  inflatis  buccis 
identidem  jactarent,  ad  auctoritatem  sibi  arrogandam,  et  interea 
Paulo  detrahere  studerent,  dicit  se  quoque  sibi  videri  compotem 
Spiritus  non  minus  quam  ipsos/' 

The  apostle  then  must  be  regarded  as  shutting  up  this  matter 
by  assuring  the  Corinthians  that  the  judgment  which  he  gave 
upon  this  question,  to  the  effect  of  rather  discouraging  marriage  in 
the  then  condition  of  the  church,  though  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  could  not  assume  the  form  of  a  command  or  injunction,  and 
left  any  one  of  them  at  liberty  to  marry  or  not  as  he  thought 
best,  was  not  merely  his  own  private  opinion,  but  one  formed  in 
the  exercise  of  his  apostolic  authority,  and  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  upon  the  whole  we  are  entitled  to 
assert  that  the  apostle  does  not  make  any  such  distinction  between 
his  own  opinion  and  the  commandments  of  God  as  to  throw  any 
real  difficulty  in  the  way  of  our  believing  that  all  that  is  contained 
in  this  chapter  may  be  ascribed,  both  as  to  the  words  and  the 
thought,  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


LECTURE  XXXII. 


INSPIEATION  (CONCLUDED). 


WE  have  now  laid  before  you  a  brief  outline  of  the  grounds  on 
which  not  only  the  divine  origin  and  authority  in  a  general 
sense,  but  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  books  of  Scripture, 
rest,  and  may  be  fully  established.  The  divine  origin  and  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  books  of  Scripture  cannot  be  proved  by  external 
evidence,  which  merely  as  evidence,  would  have  any  effect 
upon  the  minds  of  men  not  yet  persuaded  of  its  truth,  until 
the  divine  mission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  has  been  first  estab¬ 
lished.  But  when  this  is  proved,  and  when  thus  the  truth  of  what 
they  declared  to  men  in  God’s  name  is  established,  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  adducing  adequate  and  abundant  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  even  as  against 
unbelievers,  and  without  the  internal  evidence  which  arises  from 
the  discoveries  men  make  in  studying  the  word  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit,  and  from  the  effects  which  the  word  in  the  hand  of 
the  Spirit  produces  upon  their  minds  and  hearts.  The  subject  of 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture  we  have 
regarded  as  comprehending  the  discussion  of  this  general  position, 
that  God’s  immediate  and  supernatural  agency  was  so  interposed, 
not  merely  in  the  communication  of  the  substance  of  the  revelation, 
but  in  the  production  of  the  books  which  contain  it,  that  they 
are  all  his  word,  stamped  throughout  with  his  authority ;  while 
under  the  head  of  inspiration  we  have  considered  more  particularly 
the  way  and  manner  in  which  God’s  agency  was  interposed  in  the 
production  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  and  the  consequent  character 
of  the  resulting  product,  with  more  especial  reference  to  the 
question  whether  the  supernatural  agency  of  God  in  the  production 

2  c 


402 


THIRTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


of  the  books  extended  throughout  to  the  words  as  well  as  to  the 
thoughts.  We  can  know  nothing  of  the  precise  way  in  which  the 
agency  of  God  was  exerted  in  this  matter  except  from  himself, 
or  from  those  whom  he  employed  as  his  agents  or  instruments, 
that  is,  from  the  statements  of  Scripture.  And  in  turning  our 
attention  to  the  statements  of  Scripture  we  find  in  general  that 
they  give  us  no  definite  information  whatever  as  to  the  mode  of 
the  Spirit's  agency,  in  producing  the  books  of  Scripture,  upon  the 
minds  of  those  who  were  the  authors  of  them;  but  that  the 
information  communicated  respects  almost  wholly  the  books  them¬ 
selves — the  character  of  the  product  as  distinguished  from  the 
mode  of  production.  On  this  ground,  coupled  with  the  entire 
want  of  any  scriptural  evidence,  we  have  seen  reason  for  dismis¬ 
sing  altogether  the  various  kinds  or  degrees  of  inspiration  which 
have  been  invented  and  set  forth  by  many  authors,  as  descriptive 
of  the  different  modes  in  which  the  Spirit  is  supposed  to  have 
operated  upon  the  minds  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  in  producing 
the  different  portions  of  Scripture,  and  for  contentiug  ourselves 
with  abstaining  from  all  attempts  to  explain  the  mode  of  the 
Spirit’s  operation  in  the  matter,  further  than  by  saying  that  the 
authors  wrote  as  well  as  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  extended  to  the  suggestion 
of  the  words  as  well  as  the  thoughts.  This  view  of  the  origin  and 
character  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  commonly  called  the  doctrine 
of  their  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  is,  we  have  seen,  plainly  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  authority  of  Scripture  itself,  when  it  tells  us  that 
the  books  themselves  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  when  it 
sets  before  us  the  way  and  manner  in  which  our  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  dealt  with  the  statements  they  quoted  from  the  Old 
Testament,  as  well  as  by  other  collateral  and  less  direct  topics  of 
evidence.  After  explaining  the  direct  evidence  upon  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scripture  rests, 
we  have  examined  some  of  the  principal  objections  which  have 
been  adduced  against  it,  especially  those  commonly  adduced  by 
men  whose  views  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  approach  nearest 
in  point  of  soundness  to  what  we  reckon  to  be  the  truth  upon  this 
point — men  such  as  Dr  Pye  Smith  and  Dr  Hill,  who  hold  that 
some  parts  of  the  Bible  were  verbally  inspired,  and  that  the  whole 
of  it  was  composed  under  such  a  guidance  or  superintendence  of 


INSPIRATION 


403 


the  Spirit,  as  to  preserve  the  authors  from  all  error  in  their  state¬ 
ments.  And  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  the  objections, 
as  coming  from  men  who  hold  these  views,  prove  too  much,  and 
therefore  prove  nothing  ;  that  they  rest  upon  no  solid  foundation, 
and  tliat  at  best,  even  if  they  could  not  be  so  directly  answered  as 
they  can  be,  they  would  just  stand  as  difficulties  attaching  to 
a  mysterious,  and  to  a  large  extent  unknown,  subject,  without 
affording  any  sufficient  ground  for  refusing  to  yield  to  the  force  of 
the  proper  evidence,  not  directly  assailed,  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  plenary  verbal  inspiration  rests. 

The  books  of  Scripture  were  all  undoubtedly  in  a  sense  the 
word  of  man,  the  result  in  some  sense  of  the  operation  of  men’s 
faculties,  and  exhibiting  plainly  and  palpably  the  traces  of  the 
personal  individuality  of  the  authors.  They  are  also  in  some  sense, 
as  is  admitted  by  all  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  in  any 
form,  the  word  of  God,  and  to  be  ascribed  to  the  agency  of  his 
Spirit.  And  thus  the  difficulty  attaching  to  the  subject  of  inspira¬ 
tion  may  be  said  to  run  up  into  that  which  constitutes  the  one 
grand  difficutly,  in  which  all  the  difficulties  connected  with  theo¬ 
logical  speculations  ultimately  terminate,  the  difficulty,  viz.,  of 
explaining  how  it  is  that  God  and  man  are  combined  or  united, 
as  in  some  sense  they  undoubtedly  are,  in  the  production  of  man’s 
actions.  Any  doctrine  upon  the  subject  of  the  origin  and  character 
of  the  books  of  Scripture  which  comes  short  of  that  which  main¬ 
tains  their  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  necessary  implies  that  the 
Bible  is  partly  the  work  of  God,  and  partly  the  work  of  man,  but 
not  in  any  sense  wholly  the  work  of  either ;  whereas  the  doctrine 
of  plenary  verbal  inspiration,  but  that  alone,  implies  that  in  one 
sense  they  are  wholly  God’s  work,  and  in  another  wholly  man’s  ; 
and  the  difficulties  supposed  to  attach  peculiarly  to  the  doctrine 
of  verbal  inspiration  arise  wholly  from  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
these  two  positions  in  their  application  to  this  matter,  from  an 
assumption  that  the  agency  of  man  in  the  production  of  the  books 
of  Scripture,  as  it  actually  is  exhibited  on  the  face  of  the  books 
themselves,  must  necessarily  exclude  such  an  agency  on  the  part 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  matter  as  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  implies.  Such  a  mode  of  reasoning  manifestly  partakes  of 
the  character  at  once  of  presumption  and  uncertainty,  as  it  virtu¬ 
ally  amounts  to  an  assertion  of  the  impossibility  of  certain  things 


404 


THIRTY-SECOND  LECTURE, 


taking  place  in  the  process  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon 
the  spirit  of  man,  while  the  doctrine  which  ascribes  the  Bible 
wholly  in  one  sense  to  God,  and  wholly  in  another  sense  to  man, 
is  much  more  accordant,  both  with  the  particular  statements  of 
Scripture,  and  with  the  phenomena  which  it  presents,  while  it  is 
really  attended  by  no  more  serious  and  formidable  difficulties  than 
the  other.  It  is  a  consideration  which  ought  not  to  be  lost  sight 
of  in  discussing  this  subject,  that  the  concession  that  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  applies  to  some  parts  of  the  Bible  precludes  many,  of  the 
objections  which  have  been  sometimes  urged  against  the  doctrine 
we  defend.  It  at  once  cuts  off  all  apHori  objections,  and  all  objec¬ 
tions  of  a  general  kind,  founded  upon  anything  which  applies  to 
the  Bible  as  a  whole,  although,  as  we  have  seen,  some  of  those 
who  have  argued  against  plenary  verbal  inspiration  have  adduced 
against  it  objections  which,  if  really  possessed  of  any  weight,  would 
prove,  in  opposition  to  what  they  themselves  admit,  that  no  part 
of  the  Bible  was  verbally  inspired  ;  all  objections  derived  from 
man’s  constitution,  and  from  the  laws  that  regulate  his  mental 
operations.  Some  of  those  who  have  defended  the  doctrine  of 
verbal  inspiration  have  acknowledged  that  some  of  the  difficulties 
attaching  to  it  were  not  very  easily  answered  or  explained,  and 
upon  the  ground  that  these  difficulties  were  not  only  somewhat 
formidable  but  very  obvious,  as  lying  upon  the  surface,  and  apt  at 
once  to  strike  men  whose  attention  was  directed  to  the  question, 
they  have  been  induced  to  depart  from  the  order  usually  followed 
in  the  discussion  of  important  questions,  by  beginning  with 
answering  the  objections  and  removing  the  difficulties,  before 
proceeding  to  adduce  the  direct  and  positive  proofs  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  they  defended.  This  is  the  course  followed  in  two  of 
the  very  best  books  we  have  upon  the  subject,  by  Dr  Leonard 
Woods,  of  Andover,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Inspiration  of  the. 
Scriptures,  and  Gaussen,  in  his  Theopneustia,  or  Plenary  In¬ 
spiration,  which  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  commend  to  you. 
The  reasons  of  adopting  such  an  arrangement  are  stated  by  Dr 
Woods  in  a  passage  which  contains  a  comprehensive  summary  of 
the  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration,  which  are  * 
discussed  and  answered  in  his  book,  and  discussed  judiciously 
and  ably.^ 


^  Lecture  iii.  pp.  59,  60. 


MODE  OF  TREATMENT. 


405 


I  am  not  by  any  means  satisfied  that  the  order  or  arrangement 
followed  by  Dr  Woods  and  M.  Gaussen  in  the  discussion  of  this 
important  and  somewhat  difficult  subject  is  the  best  and  most 
advantageous.  Not  only  are  we  apt  to  feel  in  perusing  these 
works,  excellent  as  they  are,  that  we  are  kept  too  long  at  the  out¬ 
set  involved  in  objections  and  difficulties,  a  feeling  which  is  apt 
to  produce  an  unfavourable  impression  upon  our  views  of  the 
question  ;  but  besides,  the  fact  that  some  of  the  most  serious 
objections  against  plenary  verbal  inspiration  just  resolve  into 
difficulties  which  cannot  be  very  fully  explained  when  viewed 
separately  and  by  themselves,  but  must  be  neutralised  by  being 
set,  as  it  were,  against  the  direct  proof  of  the  doctrine,  and  by  its 
being  shewn  that  they  are  utterly  inadequate  to  countervail  it, 
seems  to  render  it  peculiarly  important,  in  order  to  the  production 
of  a  right  impression  of  the  whole  subject,  that  the  more  usual 
order  of  discussion  should  be  followed  in  this  case,  viz.,  by  bringing 
forward,  in  the  first  place,  the  direct  and  positive  evidence  on 
which  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  rests,  and  then  considering  the 
objections  which  have  been  adduced  against  it.  Some  advantage, 
I  think,  arises  in  point  of  impression  from  the  order  which  we 
have  followed  in  discussing  this  subject,  and  some  benefit  has 
resulted  in  dealing  with  the  objections,  from  our  being  able  to 
shew  that,  as  they  did  not  affect  the  direct  proof  already  adduced 
iu  support  of  the  doctrine  itself,  they  were  to  be  regarded  as  at 
best  merely  difficulties,  the  solution  of  which  might  be  more  or  less 
specific,  more  or  less  direct,  and  more  or  less  satisfactory,  but 
which,  at  any  rate,  afforded  no  sufficient  ground,  in  right  reason, 
for  rejecting  a  doctrine  which  involved  nothing  absurd,  contradic¬ 
tory,  or  inconsistent  with  first  principles — a  doctrine,  the  proof  in 
evidence  of  which  was  direct  and  satisfactory,  and  had  not  been 
assailed  upon  its  own  appropriate  ground.  It  is  true  that  some  of 
the  objections  to  denary  verbal  inspiration  are  at  once  obvious 
and  plausible ;  but  this  fact  is  only  the  stronger  reason  why  men 
should  make  themselves  familiar  with  the  leading  direct  proofs 
on  which  the  doctrine  primarily  rests  ;  examine  carefully  into  their 
nature  and  grounds,  and  if  satisfied  of  their  validity,  be  ever  ready 
to  present  them  in  opposition  to  any  mere  difficulties  by  which 
the  doctrine,  as  distinguished  from  the  evidence  on  which  it  is 
founded,  may  be  assailed.  And  the  doctrine  is  one  of  considerable 


406 


THIRTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


practical  importance,  and  does  somewhat  materially  affect  our 
general  views  and  impressions  of  the  sacredness  and  authority  of 
the  Scriptures.  It  is  plain  that  the  different  views  men  take 
upon  the  subject  of  inspiration  must  materially  affect  their  rever¬ 
ence  for  the  statements  of  Scripture,  and  the  fulness  and  cordiality 
of  their  practical  submission  to  its  authority.  This  is  very  palpable 
in  regard  to  the  lower  and  looser  views  which  have  been  held  in 
regard  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible.  The 
German  rationalists,  denying  all  immediate  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion,  while  yet  professing  to  regard  the  Scripture  as,  in  some  vague 
and  general  sense,  coming  from  God,  treat  them  with  open 
contempt,  and  bring  all  ther  own  notions  into  the  Bible,  in  place 
of  regulating  their  opinions  by  its  statements.  The  Socinians, 
admitting  an  immediate  supernatural  revelation  of  God  to  men, 
but  rejecting  all  proper  inspiration  in  any  part  of  the  process  of 
conveying  to  us  the  knowledge  of  this  revelation,  regarding  the 
prophets  and  apostles  merely  as  honest,  though  fallible,  reporters 
of  what  they  had  been  taught,  without  enjoying  any  special 
divine  guidance  in  reporting  it,  have  still  abundant  scope  for 
exercising  their  own  judgment  and  discretion  upon  the  statements 
of  Scripture,  and  do  not  scruple  to  charge  the  apostles  with  errors, 
blunders,  and  mistakes  in  reasoning  ;  and  in  this  way  manage, 
while  pretending  in  some  sense  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of 
the  Bible,  to  persuade  themselves  of  the  falsehood  of  the  great 
leading  truths  which  the  Bible,  if  it  came  from  God  at  all,  was 
manifestly  intended  to  make  known  to  us  as,  his  will.  The  same 
effect  is  observable  in  proportion  among  those  who,  admitting 
inspiration  in  some  sense,  and  with  reference  to  some  portions  of 
the  Bible,  yet  hold  it  only  in  those  lower  senses  which  we  formerly 
described  to  you.  They  all  manifest,  more  or  less,  a  want  of 
thorough  reverence  for  the  word  of  God,  and  of  implicit  submis¬ 
sion  to  its  authority.  They  have  generally  indi  cated,  and  just  in 
proportion  to  the  lowness  and  deficiency  of  their  views  upon  the 
subject  of  inspiration,  a  disposition  to  exercise  their  own  reason, 
not  merely  in  investigating  and  ascertaining  the  true  meaning  of 
scriptural  statements — for  this  is  right  and  legitimate — but  in 
modifying  and  explaining  away  what  the  Scripture  plainly  enough 
teaches,  and  in  this  way  have  commonly  been  led  to  entertain 
defective  and  erroneous  views  of  divine  truth.  For  it  is  a  remark- 


STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 


407 


able  fact  in  the  history  of  the  church,  and  one  fitted  to  suggest 
important  warnings  and  instructions,  that  men  who  have  held  low 
and  defective  views  upon  the  subject  of  inspiration,  have  very  often 
been  left  to  form  defective  and  erroneous  views  in  regard  to 
the  leading  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as  if  a  tendency 
to  indulge  their  own  speculations  upon  theological  subjects, 
without  due  deference  to  the  authority  of  God’s  revelation,  led 
them  to  cherish  notions  about  the  inspiration  of  Scripture,  which 
left  some  room  for  such  speculations  as  they  were  disposed  to 
indulge  in ;  and  then  these  defective  views  of  inspiration,  practi¬ 
cally  applied  and  acted  on,  confirmed  them  in  their  erroneous 
views  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  contributed  to  lead  them  farther 
astray. 

W e  formerly  had  occasion  to  mention  that  when  Le  Clerc  made 
his  famous  attack  upon  the  inspiration  of  Scripture,  which 
was  the  origin  of  an  important  controversy  upon  the  subject,  the 
only  influential  names  he  could  quote  as  in  some  measure  favour¬ 
ing  his  views  were  those  of  Erasmus,  Grotius,  and  Episcopius — 
all  men  who,  like  I^e  Clerc  himself,  entertained  most  unsound 
opinions  upon  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  system ;  and 
the  same  connection  has  been  more  or  less*  fully  exhibited  ever 
since  in  the  history  of  this  subject.  There  has  generally  been, 
though  of  course  not  without  occasional  exceptions,  a  remarkable 
parallelism  or  analogy  between  the  soundness  of  men’s  views  upon 
the  subject  of  inspiration  and  their  general  orthodoxy,  or  the 
correctness  of  their  sentiments  upon  the  great  leading  principles 
of  divine  truth — a  parallelism  manifest  enough  through  all  the 
'gradations  of  error,  from  German  Rationalism,  which  is  infidelity, 
up  through  Socinianism,  Pelagianism,  Arminianism,  to  truth,  as 
exhibited  in  the  Calvinism  of  the  word  of  God.  There  is  indeed 
a  fundamental  difference  between  all  lower  views  of  inspiration 
and  that  which,  while  it  admits  only  part  of  the  Bible,  and  not  the 
wliole  of  it,  to  have  been  verbally  inspired,  yet  asserts  that  the 
whole  of  it  was  composed  under  such  a  superintendence  on  the 
part  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  thoroughly  preserved  the  authors  from 
all  error  in  their  statements  ;  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  many 
men  have  maintained  this  view,  who  held  true  scriptural  prin¬ 
ciples  in  regard  to  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  This  doc¬ 
trine  may  be  admitted  to  secure  all  that  is  essential,  for  the 


408 


THIRTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


essential  thing  is  that  men  have  such  views  of  the  agency  of  God’s 
Spirit  as  exerted  in  the  production  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Bible  itself  as  coining  from  God,  and  being  really 
his  word,  as  shall  lead  them  to  submit  implicitly  their  understand¬ 
ings  and  their  hearts  to  its  statements,  without  making  any 
attempt  to  pervert  them  from  their  fair  meaning,  or  manifesting 
any  hesitation  about  submitting  to  their  authority  when  their 
meaning  is  correctlv  ascertained.  But  still  it  is  not  so  well  fitted 

O  4/ 

to  produce  and  to  preserve  a  profound  impression  of  their  sacred¬ 
ness,  and  a  habitual  and  unreserved  submission  to  their  dictates, 
as  the  view  which  we  believe  to  be  indicated  by  the  Bible  itself. 
The  lower  views  of  inspiration  have  been  commonly  taken  up  and 
supported  by  men  from  a  desire  to  escape  from  the  paramount 
binding  authority  of  God’s  revelation,  and  to  have  some  scope  for 
the  exercise  of  their  own  judgment  and  discretion  in  the  formation 
of  their  views  upon  theological  subjects.  This  desire  and  propen¬ 
sity  are  strongly  characteristic  of  men,  and  anything  which  leaves 
room  for  the  gratification  of  it  is  in  some  danger  of  being  abused. 
If  men  would  honestly  and  consistently  act  upon  the  conviction 
that  the  Bible  was  wholly  composed  under  such  a  direction  and 
superintendence  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  be  altogether 
free  from  error,  so  that  men’s  duty  is  just  to  ascertain  the  meaning 
of  its  statements,  and  then  at  once  implicitly  and  absolutely  to 
submit  to  them,  the  practical  mischief  of  the  deficiency  or  error  of 
their  opinion  in  denying  plenary  verbal  inspiration  might  not  be 
very  great ;  but  from  the  tendency  in  human  nature  to  which  we 
have  adverted  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  the  exclusion  of  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  from  the  suggestion  of  the  words  of  some 
parts  of  Scripture,  though  the  supporters  of  this  view  may  acknow- 
ledge  that  they  do  not  know  what  parts  are  verbally  inspired  and 
what  not,  and  may  profess  and  honestly  intend  to  treat  it  all  as  if 
it  were  dictated  by  the  Spirit,  may  insensibly  lead  them  to  have 
practically  less  reverence  for  its  statements,  and  to  pay  less  defer¬ 
ence  to  its  authority,  may  make  them  more  ready  to  indulge  in 
some  of  those  methods  of  escaping  from  the  full  impression  of  the 
fair  meaning  of  its  statements  which  have  been  so  largely  practised 
in  every  age.  While  therefore  we  should  not  overrate  the  practical 
importance  of  the  difference  between  the  doctrine  of  plenary 
verbal  inspiration  and  that  which  ascribes  verbal  inspiration  only 


LITERATURE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


409 


to  some  parts  of  Scripture,  but  maintains  that  it  has  been  all 
composed  under  such  divine  superintendence  as  to  be  wholly  free 
from  error,  neither  should  we  reckon  it  a  light  matter  what 
opinion  we  hold  upon  this  subject;  and  we  should  take  care  to 
investigate  it  thoroughly,  and  to  make  up  our  minds  concerning  it. 
It  is  of  special  importance  to  remember  that  the  proper  question 
to  be  determined  is  not  what  measure  of  inspiration  we  might 
conceive  to  be  necessary  or  sufficient  or  desirable,  but  what  is  the 
actual  truth  upon  the  point  as  established  by  the  word  of  God 
itself,  as  ascertained  from  its  statements,  and  from  the  facts  and 
phenomena  which  it  presents. 

If  the  Scriptures  afford  us  sufficient  grounds  for  believing,  as  we 
are  persuaded  they  do,  that  the  whole  Bible  was  composed,  even 
as  to  the  words  of  which  it  consists,  through  the  immediate  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  it  is  our  imperative  duty  to  receive  this 
doctrine  as  a  portion  of  God’s  revealed  truth,  and  to  seek  continu¬ 
ally  to  apply  it  for  determining  our  feelings  and  regulating  our 
conduct  in  regard  to  the  sacred  Scriptures ;  and  then  we  may  be 
assured  of  this,  that  both  from  the  native  tendency  of  this  doctrine 
itself,  and  the  influence  it  is  fitted  to  exert  in  guarding  us  against 
some  of  the  common  sources  of  error  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  also  from  the  blessing  of  God  which  may  be  expected 
to  accompany  the  maintenance  of  right  views  of  that  word  which 
he  has  magnified  above  all  his  works,  we  will  be  most  fully  and 
most  certainly  guided  into  all  truth,  and  be  led  into  a  correct 
knowledge  of  his  revealed  will,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
dictated  the  Bible,  and  whom  we  honour  in  recognising  him  as 
its  author,  will  pour  out  upon  us  most  abundantly  his  enlighten¬ 
ing  influences. 

We  have  now  only  to  advert  to  the  literature  of  this  subject. 
We  have  already  given  you  some  notices  of  the  principal 
works  upon  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
as  distinguished  from  their  verbal  inspiration ;  of  the  principal 
works  in  which  the  divine  authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  as 
distinguished  from  the  general  truth  of  Christianity,  is  maintained 
and  established,  while  yet  their  verbal  inspiration  was  either 
omitted  or  else  denied,  but  not  very  fully  or  formally  discussed. 
We  confine  ourselves  now  to  the  topic  of  verbal  inspiration,  and  to 
what  has  been  formally  written  for  and  against  it.  You  must  have 


410 


THIRTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


noticed  that  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject  the  authors  to  whom 
chiefly  we  have  referred,  and  whose  works  we  have  quoted,  are  very 
modern,  and  several  of  them  still  alive ;  and  it  is  indeed  the  case 
that  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  has  been  in  some  respects 
more  fully  illustrated,  and  more  successfully  defended  of  late  than 
it  was  before.  It  is  certain  that  the  great  body  of  the  Fathers 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration,  but  they  were  not 
called  upon  to  contend  in  defence  of  it.  The  great  majority  of 
Protestant  divines  previous  to  the  middle  of  last  century,  both 
Lutheran  and  Calvinistic,  entertained  the  same  opinion  ;  but  still 
no  events  took  place  which  led  to  much  discussion  concerning  it. 
The  controversy  occasioned  in  this  country  by  the  publication  of 
Le  Clerc’s  views  did  not  lead  to  much  discussion  upon  this  precise 
question,  because  most  of  the  works  written  in  answer  to  him  did 
not  take  up  the  position  of  defending  verbal  inspiration.  This  is 
true  also  of  the  controversies  which  have  taken  place  upon  the 
subject  in  Germany.  The  opposition  made  there  to  those  who 
denied  inspiration  altogether  has  been  commonly  conducted  upon 
principles  which  did  not  lead  to  much  discussion  of  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  ;  for  few,  if  any,  of  those  who  have  been  most  zealous  in 
opposing  rationalism  have  yet  returned  to  the  sounder  views  upon 
this  point  so  strenuously  maintained  by  the  generality  of  Lutheran 
divines  for  nearly  two  hundred  years  preceding  the  middle  of  last 
century.  The  same  holds  true  to  some  extent  of  the  answers  given 
to  the  attacks  made  upon  inspiration  by  the  Socinians  of  this 
country  in  the  end  of  last  century.  One  of  the  best  books  written 
against  them,  and  one  praised  by  Dr  Pye  Smith  as  the  best  book 
upon  the  subject,  quoted  also  with  high  approbation  and  adopted 
by  Horne  in  his  Introduction  (vol.  i.  app.  ii),  viz..  Parry's  Enquiry 
into  the  Nature  and  Extent  of  Inspiration,  decidely  opposes  the 
doctrine  that  inspiration  extends  to  the  words  as  well  as  the  senti¬ 
ments.  Dr  Pye  Smith  himself,  in  two  long  notes  to  the  first  book 
of  his  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  while  defending 
inspiration  against  the  Socinians,  has  given  a  summary  of  the 
arguments  by  which  he  thinks  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration 
may  be  refuted.  This  opposition  to  verbal  inspiration  on  the  part 
of  those  who  professed  to  be  defending  the  doctrine  of  inspiration 
against  the  Socinians,  together  with  some  other  circumstances 
which  attracted  a  good  deal  of  attention  in  this  country  about 


LITERATURE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


411 


twenty  years  ago,  led  to  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  and 
produced,  perhaps,  better  and  more  complete  defences  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  verbal  inspiration  than  any  that  had  previously  existed 
in  our  language.  ^ 

1  Haldane,  Carson,  and  Gaussen  ;  Haldane  on  The  Authenticity  and  Inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  Carson’s  Theories  of  Inspiration  of  the  Rev  D.  Wilson  (now 
Bisliop  of  Calcutta),  Dr  Pye  Smith  and  Dr  Diclc  Proved  to  he  Erroneous,  and  his 
Refutation  of  Dr  Henderson's  Doctrine  in  his  late  work  on  Divine  Inspiration. 
[Characterise  Dr  Henderson  and  Woods,  and  fully  commend  Gaussen’s  latest  and 
best  book  on  the  subject.  Doctrine  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  merely  quotes 
scriptural  statements.  ] 


LECTURE  XXXIII. 


CANON  —  APOCRYPHA  (ORDER  WITH  RELATION  TO 

INSPIRATION). 


I  WOULD  scarcely  have  thought  of  recurring  to  the  subject  of  the 
canon,  had  it  not  been  that  in  the  text-book  little  or  nothing 
is  said  about  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  there 
are  some  particulars  not  unimportant  in  which  the  investigation 
of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  differs  from  the  investigation 
of  that  of  the  Old.  The  question  to  be  investigated  under  the 
head  of  the  canon  is  this,  What  are  the  particular  books  which 
are  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  collection  of  sacred  writings,  which 
have  come  from  God,  are  stamped  with  his  authority,  and  are 
intended  by  him  to  communicate  his  will  ?  or,  what  is  virtually 
the  same  thing,  and  what  is  really  the  shape  in  which  the  question 
practically  presents  itself  to  us  for  decision.  Is  the  catalogue  of 
books  usually  regarded  by  Protestant  churches  as  divinely  inspired 
a  correct  one  ?  Does  it  contain  no  books  which  are  not  entitled  to 
this  character  ?  and  does  it  contain  all  which  have  a  valid  claim 
to  admission  ?  This  question  is  evidently  one  of  great  practical 
importance,  as  affecting  the  rule  or  standard  by  which  we  are  to 
ascertain  and  to  judge  of  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  salva¬ 
tion.  And  accordingly  most  churches  have  introduced  into  their 
symbolical  books  a  list  of  the  writings  which  they  regard  as 
canonical,  as  forming  or  constituting  the  word  of  God,  and  as 
possessed  of  supreme  authority.  In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith  we  have  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  which  are  contained  under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture, 
or  the  word  of  God  written,  and  of  all  the  books  contained  in  this 
list  or  catalogue  or  canon  it  is  asserted  that  they  “  are  given  by 


CANON. 


413 


inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the  rale  of  faith  and  life.”  Of  course  it 
is  your  duty  to  investigate  the  truth  of  this  statement,  and  if 
satisfied  of  its  truth,  to  be  able  to  give  some  account  of  the  grounds 
on  which  vour  conviction  rests.  It  is  said  further,  in  the  next 
section  of  the  same  chapter,  that  “  the  books  commonly  called 
Apocrypha,  not  being  of  divine  inspiration,  are  no  part  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  and  therefore  are  of  no  authority ’  with  the 
church  of  God,  nor  to  be  otherwise  approved  of  or  made  use  of 
than  other  human  writings.”  This  deliverance  in  regard  to  the 
Apocrypha  is  laid  down  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  as  established  by  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
includes  most,  though  not  all,  of  the  books  usually  known  as  the 
Apocrypha,  under  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  an  age 
when  everything  connected  with  the  Popish  controversy  is  assum¬ 
ing  additional  importance,  and  when  many  who  have  not  yet 
joined  the  Church  of  Rome  are  zealously  labouring  to  corrupt  the 
rule  of  faith,  and  are  striving  to  bring  us  all  into  bondage  to  the 
authority  of  the  church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries — a  period 
within  which  a  council,  that  met  at  Carthage,  and  had  the  presence 
and  the  sanction  of  Augustine,  declared  most  of  the  apocryphal 
books  in  some  sense  canonical — it  is  right  that  you  should  be 
acquainted  with  the  grounds  on  which  a  place  in  the  canon  is 
denied  to  them.  As  to  the  general  grounds  on  which  the  canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  rests,  there  is  little  difficulty,  and  no  great 
diversity  of  opinion.  Christ  and  his  apostles  fully  and  plainly 
confirmed  by  their  authority  the  ordinary  Jewish  canon  of  the 
period  in  which  they  lived,  i.e.  they  gave  full  and  clear  testimony 
to  this  effect,  that  the  books  then  ordinarily  received  by  the  Jews 
as  canonical,  were  divinely  inspired,  that  the  Jews  having  had  the 
oracles  of  God  committed  to  them,  had  faithfully  discharged  this 
trust,  and  in  the  formation  of  their  canon  had  not  erred,  either  by 
defect  or  excess.  This  being  very  evident,  the  only  question 
with  all  who  admit  their  authority  should  be.  What  were  the  books 
which  formed  a  component  part  of  the  received  Jewish  canon  in  the 
age  of  our  Saviour  ?  The  settlement  of  this  question  undoubtedly 
depends  mainly  upon  historical  evidence.  But  the  historical 
evidence  is  complete  and  conclusive ;  and  the  matter  of  fact  being 
once  established,  the  conclusion  that  these  books  are  divinely 
inspired  follows  at  once  upon  the  authority  of  our  Lord  and  his 


414 


THIRTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


apostles.  We  have  no  such  direct  and  compendious  vray  of 
establishing  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  cannot  produce  any  such  general  authoritative 
testimony  to  the  origin  and  character  of  these  books  collectively, 
and  as  combined  together  into  one  volume,  so  that  it  should  be 
enough  to  ascertain  that  a  particular  book  at  a  certain  time  formed 
a  part  of  the  collection,  and  that  then  at  once,  without  any  further 
reasoning,  or  any  other  medium  of  proof,  its  canonical  authority 
followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  A  more  particular  examination  of 
the  historical  evidence,  with  reference  to  each  book  separately,  is 
therefore  necessary  in  investigating  and  establishing  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament. 

There  is  one  consideration  suggested  by  the  process  by  which 
the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is  established  that  is  of  some 
importance  in  investigating  that  of  the  New,  viz.,  that  in  order  to 
establish  the  canonical  authority  of  a  particular  book,  it  is  not 
indispensable  that  we  know  with  certainty  who  was  its  author. 
There  are  some  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
author  of  which  is  not  certainly  known,  while  yet  we  have  the 
testimony  of  Christ  to  their  being  inspired  and  canonical.  This  of 
itself  shews  that  it  is  not  enough  to  disprove  the  claim  of  any  book 
to  be  received  as  canonical,  that  its  author  is  not  certainly  known, 
so  that  it  is  at  least  quite  'possible  that  we  may  have  satisfactory 
evidence  that  a  particular  book  is  inspired  and  canonical,  though 
we  have  not  materials  for  establishing  with  certainty  who  was  its 
author.  The  question  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  being 
by  the  principles  clearly  deducible  from  the  statements  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  limited  to  this,  what  were  the  books  which  com¬ 
posed  the  received  J ewish  canon  at  that  time  ?  there  is  no  material 
difficulty  in  determining  that  point.  We  have  sufficient  materials 
for  ascertaining  what  books  were  then  generally  received  by  the 
Jews  as  canonical.  We  have  these  materials  to  a  large  extent  in 
the  New  Testament  itself,  in  the  testimony  of  the  contemporary 
Jewish  authors,  Josephus  and  Philo  ;  in  the  universal  and  unwaver¬ 
ing  belief  of  the  Jews  from  that  period  to  the  present  day  ;  and  in 
the  testimonies  of  some  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  particularly 
that  of  Melito  (preserved  by  Eusebius),  who  lived  in  the  second 
century,  and  who  made  the  investigating  of  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  an  object  of  peculiar  attention  and  of  diligent  inquiry. 


CANON. 


415 


The  books  wliich  compose  the  Protestant  canon  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  alone  were  received  as  of  divine  authority  by  the  Jews  of 
our  Saviour’s  days,  and  therefore  these  alone  received  his  sanction. 
There  is  no  plausible  historical  ground  for  doubting  in  regard  to 
any  one  of  them,  even  those  whose  divine  origiu  some  persons 
have  been  unwarrantably  disposed  to  question  upon  internal 
grounds,  that  it  then  formed  a  part  of  the  received  Jewish  canon  ; 
and  there  are  no  other  books  on  whose  behalf  a  claim  possessed  even 
of  plausibility  can  be  set  up  to  a  place  in  the  then  Jewish  canon. 

The  books  commonly  called  the  Apocrypha,  which  were  de¬ 
clared  by  the  Counil  of  Trent  to  be  canonical,  and  to  the  divine 
origin  and  authority  of  which  therefore  the  Church  of  Pome  and 
every  Popish  priest  is  pledged,  do  not  exist,  like  all  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Hebrew  language,  but  only 
in  the  Greek.  They  were  composed  in  the  interval  between 
the  prophet  Malachi  and  the  coming  of  our  Saviour,  a  period 
during  which  there  is  good  ground  to  believe  that  the  gift  of  pro¬ 
phetic  inspiration  was  withdrawn  from  the  Jewish  church,  though  it 
has  been  supposed  from  internal  evidence  that  some  of  them  were 
not  written  till  the  apostolic  age.  They  came,  in  the  course  of 
time  and  in  the  progress  of  error  and  corruption,  to  be  appended 
to  or  intermino^led  with  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions  of  the 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  most  of  the  editions 
of  these  versions  they  have  contrived  to  keep  their  place  to  this 
day.  Most  of  the  books  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  the 
Apocrypha,  and  found  generally  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions 
of  the  Old  Testament,  were  declared  by  the  Council  of  Trent  to 
be  canonical,  and  to  be  possessed  of  the  same  divine  inspiration 
and  authority  as  those  which  exist  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and 
were  generally  received  by  the  Jews.  This  decree  was  passed  at 
the  fourth  session  of  the  council,  when  only  about  fifty  bishops 
were  present,  most  of  them  merely  titular  Italian  bishops,  the 
creatures  and  pensioners  of  the  Pope,  and  with  very  few  among 
them  who  were  entitled  to  the  character  of  learned  theologians. 
The  canonical  authority  of  the  apocryphal  books  had  never  been 
publicly  sanctioned  by  the  church,  and  had  been  openly  denied 
by  many  of  the  most  learned  men  of  the  Komish  community  in 
every  age,  down  to  that  in  which  the  Council  of  Trent  assembled. 
This  decree  of  the  council,  establishing  the  canonical  authority  of 


416 


THIRTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


most  of  the  apocryphal  books,  is  so  utterly  destitute  of  any  solid 
foundation,  that  some  of  the  most  learned  Popish  writers  have 
given  plain  enough  indications  that  they  are  ashamed  of  it,  and 
that  they  would  have  been  glad  to  have  been  saved  from  the 
degradation  of  defending  it.  But,  as  Dr  Doyle  once  said  in 
regard  to  another  matter,  the  Church  has  spoken  at  Trent, 
causa  finita  est!'  So  these  fifty  bishops,  most  of  whom  were 
ignorant  and  unprincipled  men,  having  decreed,  and  that  too 
under  an  anathema,  the  canonical  authority  of  the  apocryphal 
books,  though,  as  we  learn  fram  Father  Paul,  there  was  considerable 
difference  of  opinion  in  the  council  upon  this  subject,  the  Romish 
priests  are  obliged  to  do  what  they  can  to  get  up  some  plausible 
pretences  in  support  of  their  claims  to  this  distinction.  We  may 
briefly  glance  at  some  of  the  principal  of  these  pretences.  Some 
Popish  writers  have  alleged  that  these  books  were  received  into 
the  canon  at  two  synods  or  councils  alleged  to  have  been  held  at 
Jerusalem  about  one  hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 
But  this  is  a  mere  fabrication,  which  has  not  a  shadow  of  historical 
evidence  to  rest  upon,  and  it  has  been  rejected  by  the  more 
respectable  Popish  writers  who  have  discussed  this  subject.  The 
invention  of  such  a  story — and  similar  inventions  are  very 
common  among  Popish  writers — just  amounts  to  a  plain  confession 
that  the  canonical  authority  of  these  books  cannot  be  established, 
unless  it  be  shewn  that  they  were  in  the  received  Jewish  canon 
before  our  Saviour’s  time.  Others  have  tried  to  shew  that  there 
was  a  difference  between  the  canon  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine  and 
the  canon  of  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  where  the  LXX.  version, 
into  which  these  apocryphal  books  ultimately  found  their  way, 
was  chiefly  executed,  and  that  though  these  books  might  not  be 
in  the  canon  of  Palestine,  they  were  in  the  canon  of  Alexandria. 

But  it  has  been  proved  that  this  allegation  too  is  destitute  of 
any  historical  evidence,  while,  even  if  it  were  true,  it  would  not  be 
sufficient  to  give  these  books  the  benefit  of  the  testimony  of  our 
Saviour  and  his  apostles,  which  of  course  had  reference  to  the 
canon  generally  received  in  Palestine.  It  has  also  been  alleged 
that  some  of  these  apocryphal  books  are  quoted  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  they  produce  two  or  three  cases  in  which  a  considerable 
similarity  obtains  between  a  statement  occurring  in  the  New 
Testament  and  one  to  be  found  in  the  Apocrypha.  But  there  is 


APOCRYPHA. 


417 


not  one  case  of  clear  and  certain  quotation,  and  nothing  like  a 
case  of  quotation  introduced  by  the  formulae  usually  employed  in 
quoting  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  clearly  recognising  its  divine 
authority.  But  the  main  ground  on  which  the  Popish  writers 
have  tried  to  defend  the  decree  is  this,  that  some  of  these  books 
were  read  in  the  churches  in  early  times,  and  believed  to  be 
canonical  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  from  which  they  draw  the 
inference  that  the  canonical  authority  of  these  books  must  have 
been  a  tradition  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  to  which  they 
usually  add,  in  order  to  help  out  the  case,  that  the  church  has 
authority,  if  not  to  make  books  canonical  which  were  not  so  before 
— though  some  of  them  have  gone  this  length — at  least  to  declare 
authoritatively  what  is  canonical  Scripture,  and  what  are  the  aposto¬ 
lical  traditions  upon  any  subject.  In  regard  to  the  authority  or 
testimony  of  the  early  church,  it  has  been  proved  conclusively  by  Pro¬ 
testant  writers  that  the  apocryphal  books  derive  very  little  support 
from  that  source,  and  that  the  application  of  the  famous  rule  of  Vin- 
centius  Lirinensis  upon  the  subject  of  tradition,  which  the  Papists 
and  Tractarians  are  accustomed  to  parade,  and  which  is  commonly 
expressed  or  indicated  by  the  words  “  quod  semper,  quod  ubique, 
quod  ab  omnibus,”  does  not  afford  them  the  slightest  countenance. 
Indeed,  with  perhaps  the  single  exception  of  the  great  principle 
of  the  right  and  duty  of  Christians  in  general  to  read  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  on  which  the  church  for  the  first  five  centuries  was  perfectly 
unanimous,  there  is  probably  no  one  point  in  the  controversy 
between  Protestants  and  the  Church  of  Borne  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Papists  has  less  appearance  of  countenance  from 
tradition,  or  the  testimony  of  the  early  church,  than  this  of  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  Apocrypha  ;  while  it  is  also  certain 
that  its  inspiration  was  denied  by  the  most  learned  men  of  the 
Church  of  Borne  itself,  down  to  the  period  of  the  Beformation.  I 
cannot  occupy  your  time  with  adducing  the  evidence  of  this,  but 
you  will  find  it  established  beyond  all  question  in  the  following 
works  : — Field  on  The  Church,  appendix  to  the  third  book,  chap.  i. ; 
Bishop  Cosines  Scholastical  History  of  the  Canon ;  and  an  un¬ 
finished  but  very  valuable  work  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet’s,  entitled 
The  Council  of  Trent  examined  and  disproved  (lect.  ii.).  Bishop 
Cosin’s  work  is  the  fullest  and  most  complete  of  these,  and  the 

2  D 


418 


THIRTY-TRIED  LECTURE. 


evidence  produced  in  it  was  so  conclusive  that  no  Papist  ever 
attempted  to  answer  it.  The  evidence  which  the  Papists  have 
been  able  to  find  in  tradition  or  in  the  early  church  in  support 
of  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Apocrypha  is  of  this  sort.  In  the 
first  three  centuries  the  claim  of  these  books  to  canonical  authority 
Avas  decidedly  and  unanimously  rejected.  It  would  seem  that 
some  of  them  were  publicly  read  in  the  churches  as  early  as, 
though  no  earlier  than,  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
But  we  know  this  chiefly  from  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea 
in  363,  forbidding  any  but  canonical  books  to  be  read  in  the 
churches,  and  then  giving  a  list  or  catalogue  of  the  canonical 
books,  in  which  none  of  the  apocryphal  ones  are  found.  It  appears 
that  some  of  those  books  continued,  notwithstanding  the  decree,  to 
be  read  in  the  churches,  though  they  were  generally  distinguished 
from  the  canonical  books,  and  described  by  the  specific  name  of 
ecclesiastical.’"  At  length,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
a  provincial  council  at  Carthage,  at  which  Augustine  was  present, 
in  giving  a  list  of  canonical  books,  meaning  however  thereby  only, 
— as  there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  though  the  point  is  involved  in 
some  obscurity, — those  which  were  and  might  be  publicly  read  in 
the  churches,  included  under  this  head  most  of  the  apocryphal 
ones.  From  this  time  the  apocryphal  books  were  generally  bound 
up  with  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  were  read  in  the  churches, 
although  still  the  most  eminent  and  learned  men  continued,  as 
they  had  done  from  the  apostolic  age  downwards,  to  deny  their 
claim  to  inspiration,  or  to  an  equality  of  authority  with  the 
canonical  Scriptures.  These  are  the  grounds  on  which  the  Church 
of  Rome  maintains  that  an  apostolic  tradition  in  favour  of  the 
canonical  authority  of  these  books  exists,  and  has  been  duly  and 
authentically  handed  down.  No  wonder  that  some  Popish  writers 
in  discussing  this  subject  have  been  disposed  to  rest  mainly  upon 
the  alleged  right  of  the  church  to  declare  authoritatively  what 
is  canonical  Scripture  and  what  are  apostolic  traditions,  without 
being  obliged  to  give  an  account  of  the  grounds  of  her  decisions. 
They  will  certainly  never  be  able  to  prove  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  apocryphal  books  until  they  have  first  proved  the  infalli¬ 
bility  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  If  they  could  establish  that,  why 
then,  as  Dr  Doyle  says  causa  finita  est but  there  is  no  other 
medium  of  proof  by  which  they  are  ever  likely  to  convince  any 


APOCRYPHA. 


419 


one  that  the  Apocrypha  is  a  part  of  the  word  of  God.  So  sensible 
are  some  of  the  more  learned  and  candid  Romanists  of  the 
deficiency  of  the  evidence  for  the  canonical  authority  of  the 
Apocrypha,  that  they  have  been  willing  to  admit,  even  since  the 
Council  of  Trent,  that  they  do  not  stand  upon  the  same  level  in 
point  of  authority  with  the  books  which  form  the  Protestant 
canon,  and  have  invented  a  distinction  to  express  this  difference, 
calling  the  one  proto-canonical  and  the  other  deutero-canonical. 
Somewhat  analogous  to  the  distinction  which  obtained  in  the 
early  times  between  canonical  and  ecclesiastical.^ 

Now,  first,  this  distinction  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  decree 
of  the  infallible  council,  which  recognises  no  such  distinction,  and 
anathematises  all  those  who  do  not  receive  them  all  as  possessed 
of  equal  authority ;  and  second,  it  is  plainly  a  virtual  admission 
that  those  which  they  call  deutero-canonical  are  not  canonical  at 
all.  These  books  are  either  the  word  of  God,  produced  by  his 
agency  and  stamped  with  his  authority,  or  they  are  entitled  to  no 
more  respect  or  influence  than  any  other  uninspired  work.  There 
is  another  distinction  which  has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  this 
matter  to  which  it  is  proper  to  advert.  It  is  a  distinction  borrowed 
from  certain  principles  which  are  usually  conceded  and  acted  upon 
in  the  investigation  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament.  All  the 
books  which  form  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  were  univer¬ 
sally  and  unanimously  regarded  by  the  early  church  as  canonical 
and  inspired,  except  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of 
James,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles 
of  John,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation.  Some, 
although  not  many,  doubted  for  a  time  about  the  canonical  autho¬ 
rity  of  these  books,  although  those  doubts  gradually  cleared  away  ; 
and  early  in  the  fourth  century  they  were  universally  regarded  with 
the  same  reverence  as  the  others.  This  part,  however,  in  the 
history  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  usually  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  one  class  being  called  bfioXoyoiiiJjivoi,  and  the  other 
dvTiXiycfMmi.  Now,  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  the  great  champion  of 
Popery,  being  obliged  to  admit  some  distinction  between  the 
canonical  and  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  tries  to 
represent  this  distinction  as  identical  with  that  which  is  admitted 
as  a  historical  fact  in  regard  to  these  two  classes  of  books  in  the 

^  Basnage,  Histoire  de  VEglise,  vol.  i.  p^442. 


420 


THIRTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


New,  and  he  does  it  very  dexterously  in  this  way  ^ :  He  proposes 
to  consider  the  sacred  books  under  three  classes,  the  first  consisting 
of  those  about  whose  authority  there  has  never  been  any  dispute 
in  the  church,  and  under  this  head  he  ranks  all  those  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  which  Protestants  reckon  canonical,  and  none 
others,  and  the  o^oXoyou/Ag^o/  of  the  New  Testament.  The  second 
class  consists  of  those  whose  authority,  although  they  are  indeed 
truly  prophetic  and  apostolic,  has  not  been  so  thoroughly  estab¬ 
lished,  or  so  unanimously  admitted  ;  and  under  this  head  he  ranks 
what  we  reckon  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  avriXsyofji.svoi  of  the  New.  The  third  class  consists  of  those  which, 
though  they  have  been  held  canonical  by  some  eminent  and  learned 
men,  as  he  alleges,  have  never  been  approved  by  the  public  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  whole  church.  This  Isist  class  he  calls  apocryphal,  and 
comprehends  under  it  those  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  even  the  Council  of  Trent  did  not  admit  into  the  canon,  viz., 
the  prayer  of  Manasseh,  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  Esdras,  the 
third  and  fourth  books  of  Maccabees,  and  the  151st  Psalm.  It  was 
a  very  skilful  artifice  of  this  great  controversialist  to  rank  the  apocry¬ 
phal  books  of  the  Old  T  estament  under  the  same  head  as  the  avnXsyofjLsvoi 
of  the  New,  which  Protestants  admit  to  be  canonical.  But  there 
is  a  radical  difference  between  the  two  cases;  for,  independently  of 
the  conclusive  general  objection  against  the  apocryphal  books,  viz., 
that  they  never  formed  a  part  of  the  Jewish  canon  as  sanctioned 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  independently  of  the  conclusive 
evidence  against  their  canonical  authority  resting  upon  internal 
grounds,  there  are  most  important  differences  between  them  in 
regard  to  the  particular  historical  evidence,  or  the  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  concerning  them.  In  regard  to  the  uvTiXsyofji.svot  of  the 
New  Testament,  all  that  can  be  established  is  that  doubts  were 
entertained  by  a  few  persons  for  a  time,  whether  they  were  written 
by  apostles  or  not.  All  that  was  desiderated  was  evidence  that 
they  were  written  by  apostles,  and  when  proof  of  this  was  diffused 
over  the  church,  all  doubt  was  removed,  and  in  the  fourth  century 
they  were  universally  received  as  canonical.  Whereas,  in  regard 
to  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  for  the  first  three  centuries  and  a-half  any  church  on  any  data 
believe  them  to  be  canonical,  while  there  is  conclusive  evidence 

’  De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  i.  chap.  iv.  p.  4. 


APOCRYPHA. 


421 


that  during  that  period  they  were  generally  regarded  and  openly 
declared  to  be  destitute  of  all  divine  authority.  Nothing  certainly 
has  since  occurred  or  been  discovered  to  remove  the  objections  to 
their  canonical  authority  which  were  regarded  as  conclusive  during 
the  first  three  centuries,  or  to  confirm  the  evidence  of  their  inspira¬ 
tion.  And  although,  from  the  fifth  century  downwards,  some  held 
them  to  be  canonical,  they  never  were  approved  by  the  public 
judgment,  or  even  by  the  general  concurrence  of  the  church,  till 
the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  internal  evidence  against  the  canonical  authority  of  the 
apocryphal  books  is  clear  and  conclusive.  It  consists  of  fabulous 
and  contradictory  narratives,  statements  both  of  doctrine  and  fact 
opposed  to  what  is  found  in  those  Scriptures  universally  admitted 
to  be  canonical,  and  countenance  given  to  some  practises  which 
the  word  of  God  condemns.  You  will  find  a  very  good  summary 
of  this  evidence  in  the  appendix  to  the  first  volume  of  Horne’s 
Introduction,  and  a  fuller  statement  of  it  in  Mr  Haldane’s  work 
on  The  Authenticity  and  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
principal  reason  which  induced  the  Council  of  Trent  to  raise 
the  apocrypha  to  the  level  of  the  word  of  God  was,  that  it  con¬ 
tains  a  testimony  in  favour  of  praying  for  the  dead,  which  they  try 
to  make  available — though  it  is  quite  insufficient  for  the  purpose, 
even  if  it  were  admitted  to  be  inspired — as  a  proof  of  purgatory  ; 
and  that  it  contains  several  testimonies  in  favour  of  their  grand 
corruption  of  the  gospel,  justification  by  deeds  of  love,  and  the 
meritorious  efficacy  of  prayer,  fasting,  and  alms-giving  in  procuring 
the  favour  of  God  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  As  in  their  contro¬ 
versies  with  the  Reformers  before  the  Council  of  Trent  assembled, 
they  could  scarcely  fail  to  see  that  there  was  a  miserable  lack  of 
scriptural  proof  to  support  their  doctrines,  they  wisely  concluded 
that  the  opportunity  was  not  to  be  lost,  when  an  infallible  Council 
which  had  authority  to  declare  canonical  Scripture  and  apostolic 
traditions  was  met,  of  establishing  so  useful  an  auxiliary.  They 
have  not,  however,  by  this  decree  done  any  real  mischief  to  Pro¬ 
testantism  and  sound  doctrine,  but  have  only  injured  themselves. 
They  have  indeed  tied  a  millstone  round  the  neck  of  the  infalli¬ 
bility  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  by  asserting  a  position  and  requiring 
assent  to  it  under  an  anathema,  which  is  notoriously  and  unques¬ 
tionably  false,  and  which  the  more  candid  and  learned  among 


422 


THIRTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


themselves,  though  obliged  to  profess,  shrink  from  defending. 
Though  the  Reformers  were  unanimous  in  rejecting  the  claim  of 
the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  a  place  in  the 
canon,  in  denying  to  them  divine  inspiration  and  authority,  they 
generally  allowed  them  to  retain  their  place  in  the  Bible,  and 
translated  them  into  the  vulgar  languages.  And  in  some  editions 
of  the  Bible  which  were  circulated  on  the  Continent,  the  apocry¬ 
phal  books  were  not  merely  collected  together  and  appended  to 
the  Old  Testament — the  form  and  position  in  which  they  com¬ 
monly  appear  in  Bibles  printed  in  England — but  they  even  were 
intermingled  with  the  sacred  Scriptures,  coming  in  without  any 
obvious  and  palpable  mark  of  distinction  at  the  places  where  they 
are  introduced  in  the  Septuagint,  the  source  from  which  those 
apocryphal  books  and  portions  of  books  are  derived.  This  was 
a  very  erroneous  and  dangerous  practice,  even  in  the  less  offensive 
form  which  it  assumed  in  Bibles  printed  in  England,  in  which  the 
Apocrypha  was  appended  and  not  intermingled,  as  tending  to 
break  down  in  men's  minds  a  right  sense  of  the  distinction  that 
ought  ever  to  be  maintained  full  and  unimpaired  between  the 
word  of  God  and  the  word  of  man,  between  writings  which  come 
from  God,  and  are  therefore  possessed  of  supreme  and  infallible 
authority,  and  writings  which  besides  being  possessed  of  no  au¬ 
thority  whatever,  are  some  of  them  liable  to  the  still  more  serious 
objection  of  putting  forth  a/aZse  claim  to  a  divine  origin. 

There  is  another  topic  connected  with  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  has  of  late  attracted  some  notice,  and  is  entitled 
to  some  share  of  your  attention,  and  this  is  the  attack  that  has 
been  made  upon  the  authenticity  and  canonicity  of  many  of  the 
books,  and  upon  large  portions  of  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  by 
a  series  of  German  writers,  some  of  whom  have  brought  to  this 
work  a  large  amount  of  learning,  accompanied  generally  with  a 
miserable  lack  of  common  sense  and  sound  logic.  The  principles 
upon  which  they  usually  proceed  in  this  matter  are  these  :  The 
testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  to  the  integrity  of  the  Jewish  canon,  is  of  no 
weight,  for  they  either  shared  in’  the  ignorance  and  error  which 
generally  prevailed  among  their  countrymen  in  regard  to  the 
origin  and  character  of  their  sacred  books,  or,  though  they  had 
the  discernment  and  sagacity  to  perceive  the  absurdity  of  the 


HIGHER  CRITICISM! 


423 


prevalent  Jewish  notions  upon  these  subjects,  they  to  avoid  offence, 
professed  to  concur  in  them,  and  usually  spoke  as  if  they  believed  in 
their  truth  and  soundness.  Miracles  and  prophecies  are  impossi¬ 
bilities,  and  all  apparent  predictions  that  really  seem  to  have  had 
a  fulfilment  must  have  been  written  after  the  events  in  which  they 
seem  to  have  been  fulfilled.  Having  thus  settled  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion  in  the  gross  by  general  a  priori  considerations,  they  proceed 
to  apply  the  principles  of  criticism  more  specifically  and  in  detail 
to  particular  books  and  portions  of  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in 
order  to  shew  that  they  are  neither  genuine  nor  authentic.  This 
criticism  is  of  two  kinds,  the  lower  and  the  higher.  The  lower 
consists  of  an  examination  of  the  languages  and  contents  of  the 
books,  especially  of  the  events  recorded,  and  of  the  allusions  to 
manners  and  customs,  with  the  view  of  determining  the  age  and 
credibility  of  the  particular  books.  This  process  in  its  general 
character  is  quite  a  legitimate  one,  and  it  has  often  been  success¬ 
fully  applied  in  proving  that  particular  books  were  forgeries  of  a 
later  age.  All  such  attempts  require  to  be  investigated  and 
answered,  if  they  can  be  answered,  in  detail,  and  you  ought  to 
know  something  of  the  grounds  of  this  description  on  which  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  assailed 
and  defended.  The  higher  criticism  embodies  the  application  of 
principles  of  a  much  more  indefinite  and  impalpable  description, 
and  consists  in  substance  in  a  mere  appeal  to  the  taste  and  feeling 
of  men,  an  utterly  uncertain  and  fallacious  test  by  which  to  judge 
of  matters  that  can  be  competently  decided  only  by  appropriate 
historical  evidence.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  how¬ 
ever  stood  without  injury  this  the  most  formidable  assault  that 
has  ever  been  made  upon  them.  In  the  legitimate  department  of 
the  lower  criticism  the  evidence  adduced  to  disprove  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  particular  books  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  subjected 
to  a  thorough  investigation,  and  been  proved  to  be  utterly  insuffi¬ 
cient  to  serve  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  brought  forward ;  and 
in  the  department  of  the  higher  criticism  the  folly,  capriciousness, 
and  recklessness  of  those  who  applied  this  test  have  been  so  fully 
exposed,  that  even  in  Germany  it  is  now  generally  abandoned  to 
contempt.^ 

^  Hengstenberg’s  Ghrlstology  and  Genuineness  of  Pentateuch  and  Daniel ;  Alex¬ 
ander  on  Canon  of  Old  Testament ;  Alexander  on  Isaiah, 


LECTURE  XXXIV. 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


TIHE  have  already  had  occasion  to  mention  to  you  an  important 
^  ’  difference  between  the  materials  we  have  for  settling  the 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament  and  those  for  settling  the  canon  of 
the  New.  In  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  we  have  the  testimony 
of  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles  to  the  correctness  of  the  canon  as 
then  generally  received  by  the  Jews;  so  that  the  only  further 
question  is,  What  were  the  books  which  then  formed  a  component 
part  of  the  canon  of  the  Jews  ?  Whereas,  in  regard  to  the  New 
Testament,  we  have  no  such  direct  compendious  and  authoritative 
way  of  settling  it,  but  must  enter  more  in  detail  into  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  history  and  claims  of  each  particular  book.  We 
cannot  here  enter  into  these  details.  You  will  find  everything 
connected  with  the  establishment  of  the  canonical  authority  of 
each  particular  book  in  the  New  Testament  fully  explained  and 
illustrated  in  many  works  which  are  quite  accessible  to  you. 
Some  of  these  works  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  commend, 
and  I  shall  again  advert  to  the  literature  of  the  subject  before 
taking  leave  of  it.  But  let  me  impress  it  upon  you  that  the  canon 
of  the  New  Testament,  i.e.  the  ground  of  the  claims  of  each  parti¬ 
cular  book  in  the  New  Testament  to  a  place  in  the  canon  of 
inspiration,  and  of  the  claim  of  the  whole  collection  to  the  exclu¬ 
sion  of  all  others,  with  the  objections  which  have  been  adduced 
against  the  claim  of  each,  and  the  arguments  and  facts  bv  which 
these  objections  may  be  answered,  form  an  important  subject  of 
investigation,  with  which  you  are  bound  to  make  yourselves 
acquainted.  I  mean  to  make  only  a  few  observations  upon  the 
general  nature  and  bearing  of  the  points  that  require  to  be 
attended  to  in  this  investigation,  without  professing  to  discuss 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


425 


them.  There  never  has  been  any  material  difference  of  opinion 
among  Christian  churches  in  regard  to  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament.  From  the  earliest  period  at  which  any  Christian 
church  can  be  said  to  have  given  a  deliverance  upon  this  subject 
down  to  the  present  day,  there  has  been  an  almost  universal 
concurrence  among  churches  as  to  the  books  which  ought  to  be 
admitted  into  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  Infidels  have 
endeavoured  to  raise  some  difficulties  upon  the  subject,  both  with 
respect  to  the  canon  in  general  and  the  canonical  authority  of 
particular  books.  Eminent  men  in  the  different  branches  of  the 
church  have  occasionally  denied  the  canonicity  of  one  or  more  of 
the  received  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  sometimes,  though 
far  less  fi'equently,  have  contended  for  the  admission  of  one  or 
two  ancient  books  which  have  not  usually  been  allowed  a  place  in 
the  canon  ;  and  the  Papists,  though  they  hold  the  same  canon  as 
Protestants  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  have,  in 
their  usual  spirit,  and  in  accordance  with  their  ordinary  plan  of 
labouring  to  overturn  every  solid  foundation  for  truth  and  religion, 
that  they  might  establish  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  the  only 
ground  of  certain  knowledge,  have  been  ever  willing  to  counten¬ 
ance  infidel  difficulties  and  objections.  These  then  are  the 
points  to  be  attended  to  in  the  investigation  of  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  it  is  the  more  necessary  that  you  should  be 
well  acquainted  with  this  matter,  because  there  is  no  one  subject 
to  which  the  learning  and  ingenuity  of  the  Continental  writers, 
ever  since  the  rise  of  rationalism,  has  been  more  assiduously 
directed,  and  none  perhaps  in  which  they  have  laboured  with  a 
larger  measure  of  success,  than  in  assailing  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  particular  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Many  of  them 
have  exerted  themselves  with  unwearied  zeal  and  diligence  to 
collect  and  set  off  every  sort  of  argument  or  probability,  internal 
and  external,  bearing  upon  this  result ;  and  there  is  perhaps  no 
branch  of  theological  study  in  which,  upon  the  whole,  they  have 
been  more  successful  in  doing  mischief,  at  least  to  the  extent  of 
exciting  doubts  and  suspicions  in  men’s  minds. 

The  evidence  by  which  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  is  proved,  is  the  same  in  kind  as  that  by  which 
we  establish  their  genuineness.  The  books  are  proved  to  be 
genuine  when  it  is  shewn  that  they  were  the  productions  of  the 


426 


THIRTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


men  whose  names  they  bear;  and  after  it  has  been  established 
that  these  men,  the  apostles  of  our  Lord,  were  divinely  commis¬ 
sioned  teachers,  and  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  canonical 
authority  of  the  books  which  they  wrote  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  chief  difference  between  these  two  questions  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  and  their  canonical 
authority — I  mean  with  respect  to  the  proof  that  bears  upon  them 
— is  this,  that  in  establishing  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  as  a  necessary  branch  of  the  general  argument  for 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  revelation,  we  do  not  need  to  enter 
upon  the  consideration  of  all  the  books  which  compose  the  New 
Testament,  as  at  that  stage  of  the  argument  we  have  only  to  shew 
that  we  have  the  accounts  given  of  the  leading  events  on  which 
the  truth  of  Christianity  rests,  by  men  who  were  the  original  wit¬ 
nesses,  and  had  the  best  opportunities  of  knowdng  them ;  whereas 
in  investigating  the  canon  we  must  examine  all  the  books  which 
profess  to  come  from  these  men  who  have  been  proved  to  be 
divinely  inspired,  commissioned  to  reveal  God’s  will,  that  we  may 
know  precisely  what  the  sources  are  from  which  we  are  to  learn 
the  will  of  God  as  communicated  by  him  through  their  instru¬ 
mentality.  Still,  in  regard  to  the  one  subject  as  well  as  to  the  other, 
it  resolves  to  a  large  extent  into  a  question  of  authorship.  Were 
the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  really  those 
divinely  commissioned  and  inspired  men  to  whom  they  are  usually 
ascribed  ?  And  did  they  or  any  other  divinely  commissioned  and 
inspired  men  produce  any  other  books  now  existing  from  which 
equally  with  those  of  the  New  Testament  we  are  to  learn  the  will 
of  God  ?  From  this  general  explanation  of  the  nature  of  the 
question,  of  the  thing  to  be  ascertained  and  established,  you  see  at 
once  how  irrelevant  and  unreasonable  are  the  principal  difficulties 
which  infidels  have  been  accustomed  to  propound  in  regard  to  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  in  general.  They  have  been  accus¬ 
tomed  to  ask — when  was  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  settled 
or  established  ?  by  whom  ?  on  what  authority  %  and  they  have 
sometimes  answered  these  questions  by  saying  that  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament  was  not  established  till  after  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  when  it  was  done  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 
■which  first  published  by  ecclesiastical  authority  a  list  of  the  books 
that  were  held  to  be  canonical.  Now,  there  really  never  was  any 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


427 


such  thing  as  what  seems  to  be  conceived  of  under  the  designation 
of  establishing  or  settling  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
canonical  authority  of  the  books,  their  right  to  be  regarded  as  an 
authoritative  communication  of  the  will  of  God,  depends  entirely 
upon  the  actual  matter  of  fact  of  their  having  been  composed  by 
divinely  inspired  authors ;  and  the  settlement  of  the  canon  properly 
means  nothing  else  than  the  establishment  of  this  as  a  matter  of 
fact  by  the  appropriate  evidence  with  respect  to  those  books  on 
whose  behalf  a  claim  to  canonical  authority  has  been  put  forth. 
Their  canonical  authority,  their  right  to  a  place  in  that  collection 
of  sacred  writings  by  which  God  purposed  to  make  known  his  wil], 
did  not  depend  upon,  and  could  not  rightly  be  affected  by,  anything 
but  just  the  fact  of  their  being  the  productions  of  such  men.  When 
a  divinely  inspired  man  wrote  a  work  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit,  its  canonical  authority,  its  right  to  be  regarded  as  commu¬ 
nicating  God’s  will,  was  complete  in  itself  whenever  it  was  written, 
and  its  right  to  be  received  and  submitted  to  by  every  man  or 
church  was  settled  or  established  whenever  satisfactory  evidence 
was  produced  that  it  was  the  production  of  an  inspired  author. 
This  was  the  state  of  the  case  in  the  apostolic  age  itself.  Paul,  in 
concluding  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  said,  “  The  saluta¬ 
tion  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand  ”  (xvi.  21) ;  and  in  concluding  his 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  he  said,  The  salutation  of 
Paul  with  mine  own  hand,  which  is  the  token  in  every  epistle  ” 
(iii.  17) ;  and  this  practice  of  his  plainly  implies  that  the  apostle 
himself  and  the  churches  of  that  age  thought  that  all  that  was 
necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  claim  of  his  writings  to  divine 
authority  was  just  to  prove  that  they  were  written  or  dictated  by 
him.  The  state  of  the  case  continued  of  course  the  same  after  the 
apostle  was  removed  from  this  world.  The  canonical  authority  of 
the  book  depended  wholly  upon  its  having  been  written  by  him,  and 
the  establishment  of  its  canonical  authority  rested  wholly  upon  the 
proof  of  this  as  a  matter  of  fact.  In  investigating  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  a  satisfactory 
result  than  to  produce  sufficient  evidence  in  regard  to  all  the 
books  for  which  we  claim  a  place  there,  that  they  were  the  pro¬ 
ductions  of  divinely  inspired  men  who  were  commissioned  and 
authorised  by  God  to  reveal  his  will.  Nothing  more  than  this  is 
necessary,  and  nothing  less  will  serve.  We  do  not  pretend  to  be 


428 


THIRTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


able  to  establish  at  once  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole 
by  any  conclusive  and  authoritative  argument,  which  proves  of  itself 
that  the  whole  books  which  compose  it  were  given  by  inspira¬ 
tion  of  God,  as  we  establish  at  once  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
by  the  testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  We  acknowledge 
that  we  are  bound  to  produce  sufficient  evidence  that  any  book 
for  which  we  claim  canonical  authority  was  written  by  a  man  who 
enjoyed  divine  inspiration.  We  are  willing  to  undertake  this 
burden  of  proof;  and  when  we  assume  this  responsibility  we  are 
fully  entitled  to  throw  aside  as  irrelevant  all  cavils  about  the  time 
and  circumstances  of  the  establishment  of  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  a  point  about  which  we  do  not  assert  anything,  and  do 
not  need  to  assert  anything ;  and  when  we  have  completed  our 
proof  in  regard  to  each  particular  book  to  which  we  assign  a  place 
in  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  then  entitled  to  say 
that  the  cause  is  finished,  that  we  have  established  our  position ; 
that  to  raise  difficulties,  as  infidels  and  Papists  often  do,  about  the 
alleged  time  and  manner  of  what  is  called  settling  the  canon  as  a 
whole  is  merely  to  cavil  and  to  evade  the  argument,  and  that  the 
only  way  in  which  we  can  be  fairly  and  honestly  met  is  to  assail 
the  evidence  which  has  been  produced  in  support  of  the  claim  of 
each  particular  book  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  as  being  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  a  man  who  was  divinely  inspired,  or  to  produce  satisfactory 
evidence  that  there  are  other  books  which  upon  the  same  grounds 
are  equally  well  entitled  to  be  received  as  canonical  Scripture. 
The  question  as  to  when  the  books  which  compose  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament  were  first  collected  into  one  volume  is  a  mere 
matter  of  historical  curiosity,  and  has  really  nothing  to  do  with 
settling  their  canonical  authority,  though  these  two  questions  have 
been  commonly  confounded  by  those  who  have  laboured  to  involve 
this  whole  matter  in  obscurity  and  uncertainty.  Their  canonical 
authority  depends  upon  their  authorship,  and  we  estimate  the 
testimonies,  whether  of  individuals  or  churches  or  councils,  the 
whole  mass  of  quotations,  references,  and  other  materials  derived 
from  the  works  of  ancient  writers,  upon  the  ordinary  recognised 
principles  applicable  to  the  historical  evidence  of  a  matter  of  fact. 

The  testimony  of  the  Council  of  Loadicea,  as  indicating  the 
general  mind  of  the  church  in  the  fourth  century,  is  merely  one 
item  in  the  proof,  which  concurs  with  and  confirms  a  large  body  of 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


429 


historical  evidence,  earlier  and  more  direct,  and  forming  in  the 
aggregate  a  mass  of  satisfactory  and  conclusive  proof  of  these  two 
positions  as  matters  of  fact — first,  that  all  the  books  which  are 
usually  included  in  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  were  the 
productions  of  men  who  were  divinely  inspired ;  and  second,  that 
no  other  alleged  productions  of  the  apostolic  age  have  a  valid 
claim  to  the  same  origin  and  authority.  These  considerations  will 
point  out  to  you  how  easily  yon  can  dispose  of  any  difficulties 
which  may  be  adduced  about  what  is  called  the  time  and  manner 
of  settling  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole;  while  at 
the  same  time  they  will  convince  you  of  the  necessity  and  import¬ 
ance  of  your  being  familiar  with  the  grounds  on  which  the  claim 
of  each  particular  book  to  a  place  in  the  canon  may  be  established. 
We  have  already  indicated  the  two  leading  questions  which  are  to 
be  discussed  in  investigating  the  subject  of  the  canon — first, 
whether  all  the  books  winch  are  usually  included  in  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament  are  entitled  to  a  place  there,  as  having  been 
the  productions  of  inspired  men ;  and  second,  whether  there  are 
any  other  books  which  are  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  canon  as 
having  been  also  composed  by  the  inspired  men  of  the  apostolic 
age.  And  we  shall  in  the  first  place  briefly  notice  the  second  of 
these  questions,  the  less  important  of  the  two.  There  is  a  consider¬ 
able  mass  of  writings  sometimes  comprehended  under  the  general 
designation  of  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament — writ¬ 
ings  of  very  different  kinds  and  characters.  It  can  scarcely  be 
said  that  any  very  decided  or  influential  effort  has  ever  been  made 
to  establish  their  claim  to  canonical  authority.  Under  this  general 
designation  have  been  sometimes  comprehended  the  writings  of 
the  apostolical  Fathers,  both  those  whose  genuineness  has  been 
generally  admitted,  and  those  whose  genuineness  has  been  disputed, 
though  the  term  may  be  applied  with  more  propriety  to  those 
works  which  profess  to  be  written  by  apostles  and  evangelists,  but 
which  have  been  generally  regarded  as  forgeries.  Some  persons 
have  been  so  enamoured  of  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  Fathers, 
as  to  claim  for  them  a  place  in  the  canon.  Some  Popish  writers 
have  regarded  the  Apostolic  Canons  and  Apostolic  Constitutions  as 
the  genuine  works  of  Clement  of  Rome,  and  as  though  not 
canonical,  as  a  whole,  yet  containing  many  genuine  apostolic 
traditions,  derived  immediately  from  the  mouths  of  the  apostles. 


430 


THIRTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


Whiston,  who  was  a  singularly  eccentric  man,  and  much  more 
remarkable  for  his  honesty  and  learning  than  for  his  judgment, 
zealously  contended  that  these,  and  all  the  other  writings  ascribed 
to  Clement  of  Kome,  are  canonical ;  but  no  one  has  ever  seriously 
contended  that  the  gospels  and  epistles,  which  constitute  the  rest 
of  what  are  called  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  canon.  They  are  generally  senseless 
despicable  forgeries.  It  would  seem  that  a  great  many  works 
were  forged  in  early  ages,  and  ascribed  to  the  inspired  apostles. 
A  large  proportion  of  these  writings  have  perished,  just  because 
they  were  universally  regarded  as  too  worthless  for  preservation. 
But  a  few  of  them  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  and  though  no 
one  has  ever  seriously  contended  that  they  were  entitled  to  a 
place  in  the  canon,  they  have  been  sometimes  paraded  by  infidels, 
as  if  for  the  purpose  of  involving  the  whole  subject  of  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  canon  in  doubt  and  uncertainty.  By  classing  the 
•genuine  and  acknowledged  works  of  the  apostolic  Fathers  under 
the  same  head  with  the  forged  gospels,  epistles,  and  liturgies 
ascribed  to  the  apostles,  which  are  the  proper  apocryphal  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  they  get  a  sort  of  pretence  for  making 
certain  statements,  which  are  true  only  of  some  of  them,  but 
which  they  apply  to  them  all.  In  this  way,  and  upon  this  ground, 
they  assert  that  they  were  read  in  the  churches  in  early  times, 
and  that  they  were  often  quoted  and  referred  to  by  the  Fathers 
with  respect  and  deference,  assertions  which  are  true  of  one  or 
two  of  the  apostolic  Fathers,  but  not  of  any  of  the  rest.  An 
attempt  of  this  kind  was  made  by  Toland,  the  well-known  infidel, 
in  the  very  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  another  attempt 
of  a  similar  kind  has  been  made  in  our  own  day  by  the  publication 
of  what  is  called  the  “Apocryphal  New  Testament.”  Toland's 
principal  work  upon  the  subject  was  called  Amynto7%  and  was 
published  in  1698.  It  was  directed  to  the  object  of  considering 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  more  particularly  to  the 
object  of  bringing  forward  all  the  apocryphal  pieces,  and  insinuat¬ 
ing  that  there  was  great  difficulty  in  distinguishing  between  them 
and  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  because,  as  he 
alleged,  though  without  evidence,  they  were  promiscuously  quoted, 
and  were  referred  to  as  authoritative  by  early  Christian  authors. 
►Several  valuable  works  were  published  in  answer  to  Toland’s 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


431 


Amyntor^  especially  by  Drs  Clark,  Nye,  and  Richardson,  but  they 
have  been  all  thrown  into  the  shade  by  J ones’s  great  work  on  Tke 
Canon,  which,  though  not  formally  an  answer  to  Toland,  was 
evidently  occasioned  by  it,  and  certainly  contains  abundant 
materials  for  answering  it.  Jones’s  work  is  written  with  great 
learning,  judgment,  and  candour,  and  is  a  perfect  store-house  of 
materials  in  regard  to  almost  everything  connected  with  the 
apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament.  His  first  book  contains 
an  exposition  of  the  subject  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  in 
general,  and  of  the  principles  by  which  all  questions  concerning  it 
ought  to  be  determined.  His  second  contains  all  the  notices  to 
be  found  in  ancient  writers  concerning  any  apocryphal  books 
which  have  perished,  and  any  fragments  of  them  that  may  remain, 
and  shews,  by  an  investigation  of  every  trace  we  have  of  them, 
that  they  were  never  regarded  by  any  one,  or  at  any  time,  as 
canonical  or  inspired.  His  third  book  contains  at  full  length  the 
original  Greek  or  Latin,  accompanied  with  an  English  translation,' 
of  all  the  apocryphal  books  now  extant,  with  a  similar  investiga¬ 
tion  of  all  the  references  to  them  in  ancient  writers,  and  a  similar 
proof  that  they  have  never  been  regarded  as  entitled  to  a  place  in 
the  canon.  His  fourth  book  is  directed  to  the  object  of  establish¬ 
ing  the  canonical  authority  of  each  particular  book  in  the  New 
Testament.  His  death  however  prevented  the  completion  of 
this.  He  finished  only  the  historical  books ;  but  as  I  formerly  had 
reason  to  mention,  this  want  is  supplied  by  Lardner  in  his  supple¬ 
ment  to  the  second  part  of  his  Credibility,  entitled  also  A 
History  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  This  work  has  been 
republished  at  full  length  in  Bishop  Watson’s  Theological  Tracts. 
No  further  discussion  took  place  in  this  country  about  these 
aprocyphal  books  for  nearly  a  century.  In  1820  Hone,  the  well- 
known  infidel  and  blasphemer,  published  a  work  with  the  following 
title  :  The  Apocryphal  Neiu  Testament :  being  all  the  Gospels, 
Epistles,  and  other  pieces  now  extant,  attributed  in  the  first  four 
centuries  to  Jesus  Christ,  his  apostles  and  their  companions,  and 
not  included  in  the  New  Testament,  by  its  compilers,  translated 
from  the  original  tongues,  and  now  first  collected  into  one  volume. 
This  work  is  evidently  directed  to  the  same  object  as  Toland ’s  ; 
and  he  makes  use  of  some  of  Jones’s  materials,  by  copying  his 
translation  of  some  of  the  apocryphal  pieces  without  acknowledg- 


432 


THIRTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


ment.  It  contains  a  translation  not  only  of  most  of  the  apocryphal 
pieces,  but  also  of  the  works  of  what  we  call  the  apostolic  Fathers. 
The  chief  novelty  about  it  is,  that  it  is  printed  in  several  respects 
in  imitation  of  the  Bible,  and  is  throughout  divided  into  chapters 
and  verses,  the  division  into  verses  being  the  invention  of  the  editor, 
and  evidently  intended  to  produce  the  impression  of  similarity 
to  the  canonical  Scriptures.  The  work  contains  no  direct  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  subject  of  the  canon,  and  no  formal  attack  upon  the 
views  commonly  entertained  concerning  it ;  but  contains  many 
statements  and  insinuations  which  are  plainly  fitted  and  intended 
to  undermine  its  authority.  The  statement  in  the  title  page 
about  the  compilers  of  the  New  Testament  is  plainly  intended  to 
insinuate,  in  accordance  with  an  error,  which  has  been  already 
exposed,  that  at  some  particular  period,  not  very  well  ascertained, 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  settled  ;  mother  words, that 
a  selection  was  made  from  among  the  mass  of  writings  which  had 
been  ascribed  indiscriminately  to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  a  notion 
not  only  utterly  unsupported  by  any  historical  facts,  but  quite  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  whole  principles  on  which  the  early  church  acted  in 
this  matter,in  seeking  only  in  regard  to  each  particular  book  for  satis¬ 
factory  evidence  that  it  was  the  production  of  a  divinely  inspired 
author.  This  notion  is  more  fully  brought  out  in  the  preface, 
which  proposes  to  answer  this  question :  “  After  the  writings 
contained  in  the  New  Testament  were  selected  from  the  numerous 
gospels  and  epistles  then  in  existence,  what  became  of  the  books 
that  were  rejected  by  the  compilers?”  The  editor  is  disposed  to 
ascribe  this  selection  to  the  Council  of  Nice.  There  is  not  a  shadow 
of  historical  evidence  that  the  Council  of  Nice  did  anything  in  the 
least  resembling  this ;  but  he  seems  to  have  selected  the  Council  of 
Nice,  merely  because  he  had  collected  two  or  three  passages  which 
he  quotes  from  diflPerent  authors,  who  had  spoken  unfavourably  of 
that  council,  and  he  has  a  good  many  statements  all  directed  to 
the  object  of  insinuating  that  at  some  period  or  other  such  a 
selection  was  made,  and  made  upon  grounds  which  were  quite  inde¬ 
finite  and  arbitrary.  He  makes  repeated  assertions  too  about  the 
frequency  with  which  some  of  these  apocryphal  pieces  were  quoted 
by  the  Fathers,  and  the  respect  with  which  they  were  spoken  of, 
as  if  for  several  centuries  they  were  generally  regarded  as  stand- 
iug  very  much  upon  the  same  footing  as  those  which  now  form 


APOCRYPHAL  NEW  TESTAAIENT. 


433 


the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  as  if  consequently,  when  a 
selection  was  made,  it  did  not  rest  upon  any  certain  and  definite 
grounds. 

This  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  known  facts  of  the  case,  as  is 
fully  established  in  the  learned  work  of  Jones,  from  which  he  took 
many  of  his  translations.  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  a 
few  passages  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  Fathers  in  regard  to 
some  of  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  afford 
a  sort  of  plausible  handle  to  Papists  in  the  one  case,  and  to  infidels 
in  the  other,  for  the  allegation  that  they  reckoned  these  books 
canonical  or  inspired.  But  it  has  been  conclusively  proved  that 
to  put  such  an  interpretation  on  these  few  statements  is  to  wrest 
them  from  their  proper  meaning ;  and  that  though  some  of  them 
occasionally  employed  loose  and  inaccurate  phraseology  upon  this, 
as  they  did  upon  most  other  subjects,  yet  that  there  was  a  clear 
and  decided  judgment  of  the  whole  stream  of  ancient  authors  dis¬ 
tinguishing  between  those  books  which  composed  the  canon  of 
Protestant  churches,  and  all  others  which  have  ever  been  alleged 
to  be  canonical  and  inspired  by  God.  These  apocryphal  works  are 
of  two  very  different  classes,  though  in  Hone’s  Apocryphal  New 
Testament  they  are  all  ranked  under  one  general  head.  One  class 
consists  of  gospels  and  epistles,  which  are  ascribed  to  some  of  those 
apostles  from  whom  we  have  gospels  or  epistles  in  our  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ;  and  those  are  in  every  instance  plain  palpable  forgeries, 
which,  though  sometimes  referred  to  and  quoted  by  some  of  the 
Fathers,  have  never  been  supposed  by  any  to  be  entitled  to  a  place 
in  the  canon.  The  other  and  more  respectable  class  of  writings 
comprehended  in  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament,  and  sometimes 
included  in  the  general  designation  of  apocryphal  books,  are  the 
writings  of  those  who  are  called  the  apostolical  fathers — Barnabas, 
Clement,  Poly  carp,  Ignatius,  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  Were 
the  epistle  usually  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  really  the  production  of 
that  Barnabas  who  was  so  long  the  companion  of  Paul,  this  might 
be  regarded  as  a  strong  presumption  that  it  was  inspired  and 
canonical ;  but  we  have  reason  to  be  thankful  that  there  is  no 
sufficient  historical  evidence  that  it  was  the  production  of  that 
Barnabas,  or  that  it  was  regarded  by  the  early  church  as  canonical ; 
and  the  proof  which 'Jones  has  adduced  in  the  last  chapter  of  his 


434 


THIRTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


third  part  that  it  is  not  genuine,  but  spurious,  is,  we  think,  perfectly 
conclusive.  The  epistle  of  Clement  of  Kome  was  sometimes  read 
in  the  churches  in  early  times ;  but  it  is  well  known  that  this  is  no 
proof  that  it  was  then  reckoned  canonical,  neither  can  any  other 
sufficient  evidence  be  adduced  that  it  was  ever  regarded  as  inspired. 
It  contains  no  internal  evidence  to  disprove  its  genuineness,  and 
much  less  than  that  of  Barnabas  that  sinks  it  palpably  below  the 
canonical  books ;  but  what  is  conclusive  upon  the  point  is  that 
Clement  himself  in  the  epistle  disclaims  inspiration  and  apostolic 
authority.  The  same  is  true  of  the  epistle  of  Polycarp,  and  the 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  not  to  speak  of  the  serious  doubts  attaching  to 
the  genuineness,  or  at  least  the  integrity,  of  the  latter.  The  only 
other  remaining  work  of  this  class  is  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  of 
which  some  of  the  Fathers,  very  little  to  the  credit  of  their  taste 
and  judgment,  have  spoken  in  terms  of  high  commendation,  but  in 
regard  to  which  none  have  made  any  statement  which  even  seems 
to  imply  either  that  he  himself  or  the  church  of  his  time  reckoned 
it  canonical,  except  Origen,  who  on  one  occasion  speaks  of  it  as  a 
book  “which  was  very  useful,  and,  as  he  thought,  divinely  inspired."’ 
But  it  has  been  proved  from  Origen’s  own  writings — first,  that  the 
church  in  general  of  that  period  did  not  concur  in  the  high  esti¬ 
mate  he  had  formed  of  this  work ;  and  secondly,  that  even  Origen 
himself,  though  on  one  occasion  he  called  it  divinely  inspired,  to 
express  his  high  sense  of  its  value  and  excellence,  did  not  really 
regard  it  as  canonical,  or  as  forming  a  part  of  those  sacred  writings 
from  which  we  are  to  learn  the  will  of  God.  There  is  nothing  then 
to  fear  from  any  of  these  writings  that  have  been  comprehended 
under  the  designation  of  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament.  The 
evidence,  whether  internal  or  external,  by  which  a  claim  on  their 
behalf  to  a  place  in  the  canon  may  be  either  asserted  or  insinuated, 
is  marked  by  a  clear  and  broad  line  of  demarcation  from  that  by 
which  we  can  establish  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  all  those 
which  we  receive  as  canonical.  This  Apocryphal  New  Testament, 
of  which  and  its  contents  you  will  find  a  very  good  exposure  in 
the  appendix  to  the  first  volume  of  Horne’s  Introduction,  occa¬ 
sioned  the  publication  of  an  able  and  valuable  little  work,  entitled 
Proofs  of  Inspiration  ;  or,  The  Grounds  of  Distinction  between 
the  New  Testament  and  the  Apocryphal  Volume,  by  the  Bev. 
Thomas  Rennel.  He  professes  to  defend  plenary  as  opposed  to 


APOCRYPHAL  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


435 


partial  inspiration ;  but  by  this  he  does  not  mean  verbal,  or  as  he 
calls  it,  organic  inspiration,  which  he  opposes,  though  without 
adducing  anything  very  formidable  against  it.  But  on  the  subject 
of  the  canon  generally,  and  especially  upon  this  topic  of  the 
apocryphal  books,  it  is  an  excellent  work,  and  may  be  read  with 
much  advantage.  There  are  some  of  the  productions  which  may 
be  comprehended  under  the  designation  of  the  apocryphal  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  that  are  not  contained  or  discussed  in  any 
of  the  works  we  have  yet  mentioned.  These  are  the  Apostolic 
Canons  and  Constitutions,  Avhich  profess  to  have  been  compiled  by 
Clement  of  Borne,  and  to  contain  much  of  what  the  apostles  pre¬ 
scribed  for  regulating  the  government  of  the  church.  The  classical 
work  against  their  genuineness  and  authority  is  ^a  book  by  Daille 
or  Dallseus,  the  author  of  the  famous  treatise,  De  usu  Patrum, 
entitled  De  Pseiid-Epigr aphis  Apostolicis.  Neither  in  Jones  nor 
in  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament  have  we  any  specimens  of  the 
Liturgies  which  profess  to  have  been  framed  by  the  apostles,  and 
yet  there  have  come  down  to  us  professedly  from  apostolic  times 
no  fewer  than  five  liturgies,  by  Matthew,  Mark,  John,  Peter,  and 
James.  They  are  quite  as  palpable  forgeries  as  the  pretended 
gospels  and  epistles.  They  are  published  in  the  third  part  of  a 
very  valuable  and  important  work  on  this  subject — Fabricius, 
Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti, 


LECTURE  XXXV. 


CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Having  adverted  to  the  grounds  upon  which  we  found  the  proof 
that  no  books  not  usually  included  in  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament  have  any  right  to  a  place  there,  we  have  now  briefly  to 
notice  the  way  in  which  the  claim  of  the  commonly  received  books  to 
a  place  in  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  established.  We  have 
already  explained  to  you  that  this  virtually  resolves  in  the  main  into 
the  question  of  authorship,  i.e.  into  the  question  whether  or  not  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  really  the  productions  of  those 
divinely  commissioned  and  inspired  men  whose  name  they  bear ; 
although  it  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  the  attestation  given  by 
Christ  to  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  containing  some  books 
the  authors  of  which  are  not  known,  warrants  us  to  maintain  this 
general  position,  that  we  may  have  sufficient  evidence  of  the  cano¬ 
nical  authority  of  a  book,  about  the  author  of  which  we  have  no 
certain  information.  Having  no  general  conclusive  proof  bearing 
upon  the  canonical  authority  of  the  whole  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  similar  to  that  furnished  by  the  testimony  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  to  the  whole  of  the  Old,  we  are  bound  to  investi¬ 
gate  and  establish  the  claim  of  each  particular  book  to  a  place  in 
the  canon.  This  however  is  not  so  laborious  a  proof,  and  does 
not  require  so  lengthened  an  investigation,  as  might  at  first  sight 
appear.  With  regard  to  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  books 
which  compose  the  New  Testament,  twenty  out  of  twenty-seven, 
we  have  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  antiquity,  established  by 
a  series  of  quotations  and  references  and  declarations  and  implica¬ 
tions,  extending  back  to  the  apostolic  age,  to  the  effect  that  they 
were  the  productions  of  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  and  to 
whom  they  are  commonly  ascribed,  and  that  they  were  received 


NUW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


437 


and  acknowledged  as  given  by  inspiration  of  God.  This  statement 
applies  to  the  historical  books,  i.e.  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  the  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul  (not  including  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  and  the  first  Epistles  of  Peter  and  John. 
These  books  are  called  usually,  in  accordance  with  some  statements 
of  Eusebius  upon  this  subject,  o[j.okoyov[Lzwi,  because  no  opposition 
was  ever  made  to  their  genuineness  and  canonical  authority,  and 
no  doubt  ever  entertained  about  it.  This  you  will  find  con¬ 
clusively  established  in  the  ordinary  books  upon  the  subject.  Now, 
this  is  the  proper  evidence  for  establishing  the  point  under  con¬ 
sideration,  and  it  bears  upon  it  full,  unbroken,  untouched.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  an  external  kind  to  be  produced  upon  the  other 
side,  and  there  is  nothing  derived  from  any  internal  source,  from 
an  examination  of  what  is  contained  in  the  books  themselves, 
which,  to  say  the  least,  affords  any  reason  for  doubting  the  con¬ 
clusion  to  which  it  leads.  We  know  then  and  believe  upon  these 
grounds  that  all  these  books  which  form  much  the  largest  portion 
of  the  New  Testament,  were  the  productions  of  the  persons  to 
whom  they  are  usually  ascribed,  and  were  from  the  time  when 
they  were  first  made  known  universally  received  as  canonical  and 
inspired.  And  we  know  that  the  men  who  wrote  them,  the 
apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  under  the  immediate  and  infallible 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  their  writing  as  well  as  in  their 
oral  teaching.  This  seems  all  quite  satisfactory  and  conclusive. 
There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  that  has  been  started  as  to  the 
completeness  of  the  evidence,  based  upon  the  fact  that  three  out 
of  those  universally  received  books,  viz.,  the  gospels  of  Mark  and 
Luke,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  were  written  by  men  who 
were  not  apostles,  and  of  whose  inspiration  it  may  be  and  has 
been  alleged  that  we  have  no  satisfactory  evidence.  Now,  let  it  be 
observed  that  this  difficulty  does  not  properly  apply  to  the  subject 
of  the  canon  as  such,  and  the  evidence  which  bears  upon  the 
settlement  of  it,  but  rather  to  the  general  subject  of  inspiration. 
The  historical  evidence  for  the  right  of  these  books  to  a  place  in 
the  canon  is  precisely  the  same  as  for  those  undisputed  books 
the  o[ioXoyouiMivoi,  that  were  written  by  Matthew,  John,  Peter,  and 
Paul,  i.e.  we  have  just  the  same  evidence  that  these  books  really 
were  written  by  Mark  and  Luke ;  and  moreover  that  they  were 
universally  received  and  regarded  by  the  primitive  church  as 


438 


THIRTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


inspired  and  canonical,  as  originating  in  the  same  source,  the 
inspiration  of  God,  and  possessed  of  the  same  infallible  authority 
as  those  written  by  the  apostles.  So  far  then  as  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  primitive  church,  evinced  in  the  reception  of  the 
books  and  in  the  authority  ascribed  to  them,  can  establish  either 
canonicity  or  inspiration,  it  tells  nothing  more  in  favour  of  the 
apostles  than  it  does  of  their  companions  and  associates,  Mark  and 
Luke.  But  then  it  would  seem  that  the  leading  point  to  be 
established  by  an  appeal  to  the  testimony  or  consent  of  the  early 
church  is,  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  by 
the  persons  to  whom  they  are  usually  ascribed,  and  that  then  the 
fact  that  those  persons  were  divinely  inspired  being  already  and 
previously  proved,  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books  followed  as 
a  matter  of  course.  If  this  be  a  correct  statement  of  the  course 
and  connection  of  the  argument,  it  would  seem  that  in  order  to 
establish  the  claim  of  the  writings  of  Mark  and  Luke  to  a  place 
in  the  canon,  i.e.  their  claim  to  be  received  as  a  portion  of  those 
writings  in  which  the  will  of  God  is  authoritatively  and  infallibly 
communicated  to  •  us,  we  must  have  some  other  separate  evidence 
of  these  men  having  been  inspired,  than  merely  what  is  implied  in 
the  reception  by  the  early  church  of  their  writings  as  canonical. 

Now,  you  will  recollect  that,  in  considering  the  inspiration  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  shewed  you  that  the  proof  de¬ 
pended  very  materially  upon  our  Saviour’s  commission  and  promise 
to  his  apostles,  and  upon  the  evidence  we  possess  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  and  in  their  own  statements,  for  extending  the  results  and 
benefits  of  this  commission  and  promise,  or,  in  one  word,  the 
infallible  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  to  their  writings  as  well  as  to  their 
oral  instructions.  And  when  the  subject  under  consideration  was 
the  general  nature  of  the  inspiration  they  enjoyed,  and  the  general 
character  which  it  communicated  to  the  resulting  products,  it  was 
enough  to  apply  the  argument  to  the  writings  of  the  apostles 
which  form  a  large  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  without 
specially  adverting  to  those  parts  of  it  which  were  not  written 
by  apostles. 

Paul  stands  upon  a  somewhat  different  footing  from  the  other 
apostles  to  whom  the  promise  of  the  immediate  and  supernatural 
agency  of  the  Spirit  was  originally  and  directly  given.  But  there 
is  no  difficulty  about  his  case,  for  this  reason,  that  we  have  just  as 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


439 


satisfactory  and  as  explicit  ground  for  believing  that  he  was  called 
to  the  apostolic  office, and  was  supernaturally  and  infallibly  directed, 
as  that  Matthew  and  Peter  and  John  were.  So  that  the  question 
remains,  Have  we  any  distinct  and  explicit  evidence  that  Mark 
and  Luke  were  inspired  men,  who  enjoyed  the  special  and  imme¬ 
diate  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  or  must  we  depend  wholly 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  early  church  to  the  inspiration  of  their 
writings  ?  and  if  so,  is  this  enough  ?  Now,  the  proper  way  of 
discussing  this  point  is  in  the  first  place  to  investigate  what  we 
find  in  Scripture  with  regard  to  Mark  and  Luke,  with  the  view  of 
ascertaining  whether  or  not  there  are  any  materials  for  regarding 
them  as  inspired.  And  here  it  is  plain  in  general  that  the  miracu¬ 
lous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  not  confined  to  the  apostles,  that  there 
were  many  besides  them  who  had  the  gift  of  tongues  and  the  gift 
of  prophecy,  i.e.  who  were  supernaturally  guided  by  the  Spirit  in 
the  exposition  of  divine  truth,  even  as  to  the  words  which  they 
employed  in  conveying  it.  This  of  course  was  all  that  was  neces¬ 
sary  for  enabling  them  to  compose  an  infallible  history  of  Christ, 
or  of  his  church ;  and  if  there  were  others  besides  the  apostles 
who  had  such  gifts,  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  idea  that 
those  gifts  might  be  employed  by  the  Spirit  who  conferred  them 
in  the  production  of  some  parts  of  those  writings  which  were 
intended  to  be  the  rule  of  the  church’s  faith  and  practice,  as  well 
as  the  similar  gifts  conferred  on  the  apostles.  And  then  from  the 
relation  in  which  both  Mark  and  Luke  stood  to  the  apostles, 
as  it  is  indicated  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  pro¬ 
bable  that  they  shared  in  these  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  This  relation 
was  indeed  similar  to  that  held  by  Timothy,  Titus,  Clement,  and 
others.  If  any  genuine  writings  of  Timothy  and  Titus  had  come 
down  to  us,  there  would  have  been  very  strong  probability  in  favour 
of  their  being  inspired  and  canonical.  Although  there  is  no  evidence 
that  Clement  was  so  closely  associated  with  the  apostles  as  Mark 
and  Luke  were,  there  would  have  been  a  strong  probability  in  favour 
of  the  inspiration  of  his  genuine  writings,  especially  if  they  had 
been  generally  received  as  inspired  by  the  primitive  church,  and  if 
he  had  not  himself  disclaimed  inspiration  and  infallibility,  as  he 
has  virtually  done.  Upon  these  grounds  there  is  a  very  strong 
probability  that  Mark  and  Luke  were  inspired  men,  and  that  their 
writings  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God ;  and  the  testimony  of 


440 


THIRTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


the  primitive  church  to  the  inspiration  of  their  writings  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  complete  the  proof,  because  it  is  not  merely  a  testimony 
to  the  opinion  that  the  writings  of  Mark  and  Luke  were  inspired, 
and  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  canon  ;  but  it  comprehends  several 
important  matters  of  fact  which,  if  true,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  them,  go  directly  and  independently  of  all  mere  opinion  and 
speculation  to  establish  the  inspiration  and  canonical  authority 
of  these  writings.  The  unanimous  reception  by  the  primitive 
church  of  the  writings  of  Mark  and  Luke  as  canonical  and  inspired, 
a  reception  that  seems  from  the  very  first  to  have  been  as  unhesi¬ 
tatingly  and  cordially  extended  to  them  as  to  those  of  the  apostles, 
may  be  fairly  regarded  as  implying  and  proving  that  Mark  and 
Luke  gave  their  writings  to  the  church  as  inspired,  or  claimed 
inspiration  for  them.  We  know  that  in  early  times  there  were 
many  other  works  which  professed  to  give  an  account  of  the  same 
things,  most  of  which  have  perished,  just  because  the  church 
attached  no  value  to  them ;  and  in  these  circumstances  the  only 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  fact  that  from  the  first  the  writings 
of  Mark  and  Luke  were  received  as  on  a  level  in  point  of  value 
and  authority  with  those  of  the  apostles,  is  that  they  themselves 
laid  claim  to  the  special  and  infallible  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  and 
that  this  claim  was  made  in  such  circumstances  and  rested  upon 
such  grounds  as  at  once  insured  its  reception.  Had  they  in  their 
writings  laid  claim  to  divine  inspiration  the  claim  would  have  been 
at  once  conceded,  and  it  is  one  common  objection  against  their 
inspiration  that  they  have  not  formally  claimed  it.  They  have  not 
done  so ;  but  Matthew  has  not  laid  claim  to  it  any  more  than 
they.  They  have  said  nothing  which  affords  any  ground  for  doubt¬ 
ing  their  inspiration,  for  it  has  been  shewn  that  the  introduction 
to  Luke’s  Gospel  does  not  warrant  any  inference  of  this  sort.  Men 
occupying  such  a  place  as  they  did  could  not  have  laid  such  writ¬ 
ings  before  the  church  without  in  some  way  or  other  indicating 
to  what  source  these  writings  were  to  be  ascribed,  and  what  autho¬ 
rity  they  claimed,  and  the  origin  and  authority  actually  assigned 
to  them  by  the  general  consent  of  the  church  from  the  first  and 
without  any  hesitation,  must  in  all  fairness  be  regarded  as  corres¬ 
ponding  with  that  which  in  some  way  or  other  they  were  known 
to  have  claimed  for  themselves.  There  are  some  more  specific 
matters  of  fact  bearing  upon  this  subject,  of  which,  in  what  may  be 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON 


441 


comprehended  under  the  head  of  the  testimony  of  the  church,  we 
have  sufficient  evidence, viz., that  the  apostle  John  gave  his  sanction 
and  approbation  to  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke  as  well  as  that 
of  Matthew,  and  wrote  his  own  Gospel  with  the  view  of  completing 
the  history  of  Christ  by  introducing  some  things  not  contained  in 
theirs ;  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  under  the  immediate  direction 
and  guidance  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who  in  the  end  of  his  first 
epistle  described  him  as  Marcus,  his  son,  and  intimated  that  he 
was  then  with  him  in  Babylon  ;  and  that  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  under  the  immediate  guidance  and  direction  of  Paul, 
whom  he  accompanied  in  his  voyage  to  Borne,  and  with  whom  he 
remained  for  some  time  in  that  city.^  Upon  all  these  grounds 
we  think  it  manifest  that  there  is  no  reason  to  (ioubt,  and  quite 
sufficient  ground  to  believe,  that  Mark  and  Luke  wrote  under  the 
guidance  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  the  books 
which  they  wrote  and  gave  to  the  church  in  such  circumstances 
must  have  been  entitled  to  the  reception  they  undoubtedly  met 
with,  of  being  put  at  once  without  any  hesitation  upon  the  same 
level  with  those  of  the  apostles,  and  regarded  as  canonical  and 
inspired. 

Michaelis  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament — a  book  of 
great  value,  and  containing  much  that  is  important  and  useful, 
but  to  be  read  with  caution — has  laboured  to  overthrow  the  cano¬ 
nical  authority  of  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  Apocalypse.  His  arguments  have  been  fully  considered  and 
exceedingl}^  well  answered  in  Alexander  on  The  Canon^  and  the 
.substance  of  his  answer  is  given  in  the  fourth  volume  of  Horne’s 
Introduction,  under  the  head  of  Luke’s  Gospel. 

We  would  now  briefly  advert  to  the  di'T/Xsyo/tsvo/,  or  those  books 
of  the  New  Testament  which  were  not  always  universally  received 
as  canonical  by  the  early  church.  They  are  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter, 
Second  and  Third  of  John,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse.  In  regard  to  several  of  these,  and  especially  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse,  there  are  special  peculiarities 
respecting  their  history  and  reception  with  which  you  ought  to 
make  yourselves  acquainted,  but  into  which  we  cannot  here 

*  For  strong  internal  probabilities  of  connection  of  Peter  and  Paul  with  those 
two  Gospels  see  Rennell’s  Proofs  of  Inspiration,  pp.  53-56. 


442 


THIRTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


enter.  But  it  is  true  of  them  all  that  they  were  not  universally 
received  as  canonical  by  the  early  church,  and  that  it  was  not 
till  the  fourth  century  that  the  doubts  which  were  entertained 
about  their  divine  origin  and  authority  disappeared.  It  is  also 
true,  however,  that  there  are  some  general  considerations,  applicable 
to  all  or  most  of  them,  which  enable  us  to  account  for  this  doubting 
or  hesitation,  and  which  may  be  sufficient  to  convince  us  that 
there  is  not  now  any  reasonable  ground  for  doubting  or  denying 
their  canonical  authority.  The  leading  fact  in  regard  to  all  the 
books  is,  that  for  the  first  three  centuries  and  a  half  they  were  not 
received  as  canonical  by  the  whole  Christian  church,  as  the  rest 
of  the  books  of  the  JSTew  Testament  were  ;  that  while  many  main¬ 
tained  their  claim  to  rank  with  the  other  books  as  canonical  and 
inspired,  some  denied  it  and  others  doubted  of  it.  But  it  is  not 
difficult  to  account  for  this  fact.  The  point  to  which  the  doubts 
that  were  entertained  attached  was  this,  and  this  only,  whether  or 
not  these  books  were  really  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they 
bore,  and  to  whom  they  were  generally  ascribed.  Now,  consider¬ 
ing  the  condition  of  the  world  and  the  state  of  the  churches,  the 
means  of  intercourse,  &c.,  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  con¬ 
ceiving  that  writings  published  in  one  part  of  the  world  might  be 
long  in  becoming  known  in  another,  and  that  even  after  they 
were  in  some  measure  known,  it  might  not  be  very  easy  for  some 
time  to  ascertain  precisely  their  history,  and  to  procure  satisfactory 
evidence  as  to  the  matters  of  fact  alleged  concerning  them.  The 
existence  of  these  doubts  and  difficulties  as  to  certain  books  of  the 
New  Testament  shews  that  the  early  churches  were  very  careful 
and  scrupulous  as  to  the  reception  of  any  books  as  canonical  and 
inspired,  without  full  and  conclusive  evidence  of  their  title.  There 
were  many  apocryphal  books  in  circulation  pretending  to  be 
Avritten  by  apostles,  and  the  churches  were  on  their  guard  against 
being  deceived  by  any  false  pretences  on  this  subject.  Paul 
encouraged  the  churches  to  jealousy  upon  this  point,  by  virtually 
telling  them,  in  passages  to  which  we  formerly  had  occasion  to 
refer,  that  they  were  to  receive  no  epistles  of  his  as  genuine  unless 
the  salutation  was  written  with  his  own  hand.  And  this  salutary 
caution  and  jealousy  they  seem  to  have  faithfully  practised — a 
fact  which  at  once  accounts  for  the  doubts  entertained  for  a  time 
in  some  quarters  of  the  church,  about  some  books  in  regard  to 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON 


443 


which  they  had  not  for  the  present  access  to  any  satisfactory  evi¬ 
dence  that  they  were  the  productions  of  apostles  or  inspired  men, 
and  gives  great  weight  to  their  testimony  in  favour  of  those  in 
reo-ard  to  which  no  doubt  was  ever  entertained,  and  also  to  the 
ultimate  testimony  of  the  church  in  general  in  favour  of  the  others 
likewise,  after  the  doubts  which  had  once  attached  to  them  had 
been  removed,  i.e.  after  satisfactory  and  conclusive  evidence  had 
been  diffused  over  the  whole  extent  of  the  Christian  church  that 
they  were  the  production  of  the  men  whose  names  they  bore, 
and  to  whom  they  were  generally  ascribed.  These  considerations, 
when  viewed  as  they  should  be  in  connection  with  the  actual  evi¬ 
dence  we  have  (on  which  however  we  cannot  enter)  of  the 
canonical  authority  of  each  of  these  avr/Xgyo/Agvo/  singly  and  separ¬ 
ately,  and  their  ultimate  universal  reception  by  the  church  in  the 
fourth  century,  when,  through  the  favour  of  the  civil  authorities, 
intercourse  and  communication  among  the  churches  became  much 
more  easy,  frequent,  and  general,  afford  sufficient  evidence  that 
these  books,  as  well  as  the  others  which  compose  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  are  well  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  canonical,  as  a  part  of 
those  sacred  writings  which  were  produced  by  inspired  men  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  were  intended  by  God  to  be 
the  means  of  conveying  to  us  his  will  for  our  salvation. 

Some  persons  have  been  disposed  to  defer  so  far  to  the  doubts 
entertained  for  a  time  in  certain  quarters  in  the  early  church  as  to 
the  canonical  authority  of  these  particular  books,  and  the  conse¬ 
quent  inferiority  of  the  historical  evidence  in  support  of  their 
claim  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  as  to  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  not  to 
produce  proofs  of  doctrines  from  tliem,  or  not  to  receive  any 
doctrines  as  thoroughly  established  unless  they  can  be  proved  from 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  But  this  is  an  unnecessary 
and  unreasonable  scrupulosity.  For  the  only  fair  question  is — Is 
the  historical  evidence  in  support  of  their  canonical  authority 
sufficient  and  satisfactory  ?  If  so,  it  ought  to  be  admitted  and 
acted  on.  Now  the  historical  evidence  in  support  of  the  canonical 
authority  of  each  of  these  books  is,  as  you  will  see  on  examining 
it,  though  of  course  not  altogether  equal  to  that  enjoyed  by  those 
books  whose  claim  to  a  place  in  the  canon  was  never  doubted  or 
questioned,  quite  sufficient  to  carry  conviction  to  the  mind,  and  of 
course  to  impose  a  corresponding  obligation  upon  us  as  to  our 


444 


THIRTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


treatment  and  use  of  them.^  Perhaps  some  may  be  disposed  to 
say  that  if  this  is  the  way  in  which  the  subject  of  the  canon  is  to 
be  settled,  and  this  the  evidence  by  which  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testameot  is  to  be  established,  our  faith 
must  rest  only  upon  mere  human  testimony,  on  no  higher  grounds 
than  those  which  apply  to  any  ordinary  matter  of  history.  Now, 
in  regard  to  this  objection,  we  may  observe  that  the  evidence  of 
the  canon,  i.e.  the  proof  of  the  canonical  authority  of  the  parti¬ 
cular  books  of  scripture,  is  analogous  to  the  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity.  They  are  both  in  a  sense  matters  of  fact,  and  to 
be  investigated  and  decided  in  the  first  instance  upon  the  ordinary 
principles  and  grounds  applicable  to  matters  of  fact.  When  called 
upon  to  discuss  in  argument  the  truth  of  Christianity  with  those 
who  openly  deny  it,  we  must  establish  its  truth  upon  the  ordinary 
principles  of  evidence  held  in  common,  and  we  should  be  able  to  do 
this  so  as  to  silence  opponents,  and  to  bring  home  to  them,  if  they 
are  at  all  honest  and  impartial,  an  obligation  to  deal  with  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  such  a  way  as  we  are  sure  will  soon  open  to  them  much 
stronger  and  more  impressive  proofs  of  its  truth  than  what  is 
sometimes  called  the  rational  evidence,  as  usuallv  discussed  with 
unbelievers,  could  have  furnished.  So  in  like  manner,  in  regard 
to  the  canon,  we  should  be  able  to  establish  it  in  the  first  instance 
against  any  who  might  deny  it,  by  its  appropriate  evidence  as  a 
matter  of  fact ;  by  the  historical  proof  that  bears  upon  it,  and  to 
shew  that  this  is  sufficient  in  right  reason  to  oblige  men  to  hold 
the  question  as  satisfactorily  settled  in  argument;  while  here  too 
we  rely  upon  their  discovering  through  the  operation  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  progress  of  their  right  use  and  study  of  the  canonical  books, 
and  in  accordance  with  a  process  admirably  developed  in  the  last 
chapter  but  one  we  examined  in  the  text-book,  second  last 
chapter  of  Book  IV.,  other  and  more  impressive  evidences  that 
these  books  are  indeed  the  word  of  God,  given  by  divine  inspira¬ 
tion,  and  communicated  to  us  by  God  for  the  revelation  of  his 
will.  In  short,  we  must  apply  here  the  distinction  which  we  have 
repeatedly  had  occasion  to  explain,  between  the  external  evidence, 
by  which  we  can  defend  our  cause  in  argument  against  opponents, 
and  the  internal  evidence  by  which  we  may  attain  to  a  most 
thorough  persuasion  in  our  own  minds,  a  persuasion,  too,  resting 
*  Haldane  on  the  Authenticity  and  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  107. 


445 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

on  rational  grounds,  though  we  may  not  be  able  to  develop  them 
fully  for  convincing  and  impressing  others.  And  the  historical 
evidence  is  the  more  important  in  this  matter  of  the  canon, 
because  many  men  who  have  studied  the  subject  with  the  greatest 
care,  and  who  have  at  the  same  time  diligently  studied  the  Bible 
under  the  guidance,  there  is  the  best  reason  to  believe,  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  have  not  been  satisfied  that  men  could  by  mere 
internal  evidence,  apart  from  the  external  or  historical,  be  certainly 
persuaded  of  the  canonical  authority  of  each  particular  book  in  the 
Bible.  We  have  already  seen  the  sentiments  of  Baxter  on  this 
subject,  and  they  are  quoted  and  sanctioned  by  Hr  Chalmers,  and 
I  will  read  to  you  extracts  to  the  same  effect  from  two  living- 
authors  who,  I  have  no  doubt,  answer  fully  to  the  description 
given  above.’ 

Mr  Haldane  in  his  valuable  work  on  The  Authenticity  and 
Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  (p.  98)  objects  very  strenuously  to 
the  position  that  the  “  question  of  the  canon  is  a  matter  of  erudi¬ 
tion,  not  of  divine  revelation  and  yet  there  surely  is  a  sense  in 
which  this  position  is  true.  It  cannot  be  said  that  we  have  the 
authority  of  any  statement  based  upon  revelation  assuring  us  of 
what  the  particular  books  are  which  constitute  the  canon.  Even 
in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  canonical  authority  of  which 
was  attested  as  a  whole  by  our  Saviour  himself,  we  still  require  to 
learn  from  some  other  source  what  the  particular  books  were 
which  constituted  the  canon  to  which  he  gave  his  attestation.  And 
in  regard  to  the  New  Testament  it  is  manifest  that  we  have  not, 
in  the  first  instance,  any  certain  means  of  ascertaining  or  establish¬ 
ing  what  are  the  particular  books  which  are  entitled  to  a  place 
there,  except  by  some  investigation  of  the  historical  evidence  as  to 
the  actual  matter  of  fact  with  regard  to  their  origin  and  authorship. 
The  question  of  inspiration  is  one  of  revelation,  i.e.  God  has  made 
known  to  us  in  the  Word  itself  the  true  character,  origin,  and 
authority  of  that  word  as  the  production  of  his  Spirit  through  the 
instrumentality  of  men  who  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  him. 
But  he  has  not  given  us  in  this  word  itself,  as  he  might  have 
done  had  it  so  pleased  him,  any  explicit  information  as  to  what 
the  particular  works  are  from  which  his  whole  revealed  will  is  to 
be  learned.  He  has  given  sufficient  means  of  ascertaining  this ; 

^  See  Alexander  on  The  Canon,  pp.  125-128,  and  Gaussen,  pp.  319,  320. 


446 


THIRTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


though  it  is  in  some  measure  through  the  help  of  erudition,  i.e. 
through  the  study  of  the  historical  evidence,  while  to  those  who 
study  aright  the  Word  itself,  although  they  may  have  no  erudition, 
he  opens  up  by  his  Spirit  abundant  and  convincing  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  his  presence  and  his  power,  and  satisfies  them  that  he  is 
in  it  of  a  truth. 

The  objection  of  the  Papists,^  that  to  establish  the  canon  in  this 
way  is  to  place  our  reliance  upon  the  authority  of  the  church,  and 
thereby  to  concede  their  great  principle,  has  already  been  con¬ 
sidered  and  answered  by  shewing  that  we  concede  no  authority, 
properly  so  called,  to  the  church  in  the  matter,  but  merely  make 
use  of  the  materials  furnished  by  the  writings  of  the  early  Chris¬ 
tian  authors,  upon  the  ordinary  recognised  principles  of  evidence, 
for  establishing  certain  matters  of  historical  fact  from  which  some 
important  conclusions  are  rationally  deduced. 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  mention  and  to  characterise 
the  principal  works  in  which  the  subject  of  the  canon  in  general 
is  discussed,  and  in  which  the  grounds  are  set  forth  by  which  the 
claims  of  the  apocryphal  books,  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  a  place  in  the  canon  are  disproved.  The  details  of 
the  historical  evidence  by  which  the  claims  of  each  canonical 
book  to  the  place  it  occupies  are  established,  are  to  be  found  most 
easily,  along  with  other  useful  matter,  in  that  important  and 
valuable  class  of  works  usually  known  by  the  names  of  Introduc¬ 
tions  or  Keys  to  the  Scriptures : — Carpsovius,  Pritius  ;  Gray  and 
Percy;  Mill’s  Prolegomena ;  Basnage,  Histoire  de  VEglise,  lect. 
viii.  ;  Storr  and  Flatt ;  Knapp’s  Lectures  ;  Michaelis  and  Hug ; 
Horne,  4th  vol. 

’  This  objection  is  adopted  also  in  substance  by  the  Tractarians,  who  say  that 
we  depend  upon  the  received  traditions  both  for  our  canon  and  our  creed. 


LECTURE  XXXVL 


EULE  OF  FAITH— GENEEAL  PEINCIPLES- POPEEY  AND 

TEACTAEIANISM. 

SOME  of  the  topics  which  we  have  been  lately  considering  are 
intimately  connected  with  the  important  subject  of  the  rule  of 
faith,  or  the  standard  by  which  we  know  and  ascertain  the  revealed 
Avill  of  God,  or  rather  may  be  said  to  form  a  part  of  it.  In  estab¬ 
lishing  the  divine  origin,  authority,  and  inspiration  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  we  exclude  or  disprove  the  authority  of  human  reason 
as  the  rule  or  standard  of  what  we  ought  to  believe,  in  the  sense 
in  which  its  supremacy  has  been  often  contended  for.  If  the 
whole  Bible  be  the  word  of  God,  proceeding  from  him,  and 
written  by  men  as  they  were  moved  and  directed  by  his  Spirit, 
then  of  course  it  possesses  supreme  and  infallible  authority ; 
there  can  be  no  legitimate  appeal  from  its  statements  to  the 
deductions  or  conclusions  of  human  reason,  the  reason  of  man 
must  be  exercised  only  in  ascertaining  its  true  meaning,  and 
everything  which  it  is  found  to  declare  must  be  received  and  sub¬ 
mitted  to  as  certainly  true,  because  it  is  the  declaration  of  Him  who 
is  infallible  and  who  cannot  lie.  The  Socinians  deny  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  and  they  virtually  maintain  that  human  reason  is  the 
standard  of  truth,  the  rule  of  faith,  entitled  to  judge,  to  some 
extent  at  least,  how  far  even  the  admitted  doctrines  of  Scripture 
are  to  be  received  ;  and  there  is  an  intimate  connection  between 
their  denial  of  the  one  and  their  maintenance  of  the  other.  They 
deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture  that  they  may  have  room 
for  the  supremacy  of  reason,  not  merely  in  ascertaining  what  is 
taught  in  the  Bible,  but  in  deciding  upon  its  truth  or  falsehood. 
The  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  at  once  precludes  all 


448 


TimiTY-SIXTIl  LECTURE. 


their  views  as  to  the  province  and  functions  of  human  reason  in 
the  investigation  of  religious  truth,  practically  restricts  it  to  the 
ascertaining  of  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  imposes  an  absolute  and  imperative  obligation  to  receive 
as  infallibly  true  whatever  the  Bible  really  declares. 

Another  important  step  is  taken  towards  settling  the  subject  of 
the  rule  of  faith,  when  we  have  ascertained  what  the  books  are,  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  others,  which  were  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  given  by  him  to  the  church  as  his  Word ;  when  we 
have  shewn  that  the  books  which  are  usually  received  as  canonical 
by  Protestants,  and  these  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  apocryphal 
books  added  to  the  canon  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  received 
by  the  Church  of  Rome,  constitute  those  sacred  writings  which 
the  Spirit  of  God  inspired.  We  have  seen  that  these  are  books 
Avhich  not  onlv  contain  a  divine  revelation,  but  are  themselves 
the  word  of  God,  dictated  by  his  Spirit,  or  at  least  owing  their 
origin  to  his  agency  in  such  a  sense  and  to  such  an  extent 
as  be  free  from  all  error,  and  therefore  to  be  implicitly  sub¬ 
mitted  to  whenever  their  meaning  is  ascertained ;  and  we  have 
settled  what  these  books  are.  It  would  seem  now  that  the  only 
question  that  remained  to  be  discussed,  if  indeed  there  was  any 
great  room  for  discussion  about  it,  was,  how  may  the  meaning  of 
these  divinely  inspired  books  be  most  easily  and  most  certainly  ascer¬ 
tained  ?  But  before  we  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  this  sub¬ 
ject,  we  have  still  some  important  matters  to  attend  to  connected 
with  the  question  what  it  is  that  forms  or  constitutes  the  rule  of 
faith.  Tliere  are  still  some  errors  upon  this  subject  that  must  be 
examined  and  removed  out  of  the  way.  The  apostate  Church  of 
Rome,  which  is  the  grand  adversary  of  Christ  and  of  true  Chris¬ 
tianity,  has  corrupted  the  rule  of  faith,  not  only  by  adding  the 
apocryphal  books  to  the  word  of  God,  but  by  introducing,  in  addi¬ 
tion  even  to  their  own  enlarged  canon  of  Scripture,  another  and 
different  source  or  means  of  knowing  the  divine  will,  viz.,  tradition, 
or  what  her  most  distinguished  writers  call  the  unwritten,  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  written,  word  of  God.  And  this  subject  is  the 
more  important  in  the  present  day,  because  the  views  of  the  Romish 
Church,  in  nearly  all  their  extent  and  grossness,  have  been  taken 
up  and  publicly  advocated  by  a  large  and  influential  body  in  our 
own  country,  who  have  imbibed  all  the  fundamental  principles  of 


TEA  CTARIANISAL 


449 


Popery,  while  many  of  them  still  continue  ministers  of  a  church 
which,  thoug'h  certainly  the  most  imperfectly  reformed  of  all  the 
reformed  churches,  unquestionably  exhibits  in  its  symbolical  books 
a  decided  protest  against  Popery,  and  which  has  rendered  some  im¬ 
portant  services  to  the  cause  of  Protestant  truth  by  the  masterly  and 
invaluable  works  against  Popery  which  many  of  its  ministers  have 
produced.  The  Tractarians  indeed,  as  they  are  commonly  called, 
affect  to  point  out  some  distinction  between  their  views  and  those 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  regard  to  the  rule  of  faith,  as  well  as  in 
regard  to  most  other  points.  But  those  distinctions  are  in  general 
slight  and  insignificant,  and  when  called  upon  to  defend  them¬ 
selves  against  the  charge  of  Popery,  they  have  not  scrupled  to 
have  recourse  to  unfair  if  not  dishonest  misrepresentations  of  their 
own  opinions,  and  even  in  some  instances  those  of  the  Papists — a 
course  rendered  necessary  by  the  resolution  on  which  many  of  them 
continue  to  act,  of  adhering  to  the  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England.  They  have  just  as  explicitly  denied  the  perfection  or 
sufficiency  and  perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures  as  ever  Papists  did,  and 
they  have  laboured  to  establish  their  unfitness,  because  of  their 
imperfection  and  obscurity,  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith,  or  even 
properly  speaking,  to  be  a  rule  of  faith  at  all  by  themselves,  and 
without  tradition,  and  they  have  done  this  by  the  very  same  argu¬ 
ments  which  have  been  employed  by  the  champions  of  Popery. 
They  have  again  and  again  asserted  in  the  most  explicit  terms  that 
Scripture  and  tradition  are  together  or  jointly  the  rule  of  faith, 
and  they  have  made  many  statements  wffiich  plainly  imply  that 
they  really  attach  more  weight  and  importance  to  tradition  than  to 
Scripture  in  making  men  acquainted  with  God’s  will — statements 
which  may  be  all  regarded  as  comprehended  in  or  deducible  from 
one  of  their  favourite  maxims,  viz.,  that  tradition  teaches  and 
Scripture  proves.  By  this  maxim  they  mean  to  convey  this  idea, 
that  it  is  chiefly  from  tradition  that  men  actually  learn  what  is 
the  will  of  God,  and  that  after  they  have  learned  it  from  tradition, 
they  may  then,  to  a  considerable  extent,  prove  or  confirm  it  from 
the  Scripture. 

There  are  two  points  on  which  the  Tractarians  have  attempted 
to  shew  that  their  views  differ  from  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  regard  to  the  rule  of  faith.  First,  they  say  that  the  Church  of 

2  F 


450 


THIRTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


Rome  holds  tradition  to  be  co-ordinate  with  the  Scriptures,  whereas 
they  regard  it  as  subordinate  to  the  Scriptures.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  the  Church  of  Rome  holds  tradition  to  he  co-ordinate 
with  the  Scripture;  and  indeed  the  substance  of  the  charge 
adduced  against  the  Church  of  Rome  on  this  point  is  that,  in  the 
language  of  the  decree  of  the  Councd  of  Trent,  session  4,  she 
receives  and  venerates  the  Scripture  and  tradition  “  pari  pietatis 
affectu  ac  reverentia.”  But  it  is  not  true  that  the  Tractarians 
regard  tradition  as  subordinate  to  the  Scripture ;  and  the  allega¬ 
tion  to  this  effect,  made  by  Dr  Pusey  in  his  letter  to  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford  in  answer  to  the  charge  of  Popery,  is  a  very  discredit¬ 
able,  if  not  a  positively  dishonest  misrepresentation.  They  openly 
maintain  that  tradition,  or  Catholic  consent,  as  they  sometimes 
call  it,  is  an  infallible  divine  informant,  i.e.  conveys  to  men  from 
God  truths  which  it  is  important  for  them  to  know,  and  which, 
being  conveyed  by  tradition,  though  not  contained  in  Scripture,  are 
binding  upon  men’s  consciences,  so  that  to  reject  them  is  sinful. 
They  expressly  declare  that  Scripture  and  tradition  do,  jointly  and 
together,  make  up  the  rule  of  faith  ;  and  not  to  dwell  upon  those 
statements  in  which  they  virtually  and  practically  put  tradition 
above  Scripture,  it  is  plain  from  those  fundamental  positions  which 
they  openly  and  explicitly  maintain,  that  they  invest  it  with  an 
authority  co-ordinate  with  that  of  the  written  word,  as  an  equally 
authentic  mode  of  conveying  truth  from  God,  which,  because  it 
comes  from  him,  men  are  equally  bound  to  receive  and  submit  to. 
That  traditions  which  are  contrary  to  Scripture  are  not  to  be 
received,  is  a  position  which  is  just  as  readily  conceded  in  theory 
by  the  Papists  as  by  the  Tractarians,  and  which  is  only  a  little 
more  flagrantly  disregarded  by  them  in  practice.  The  second 
point  in  which  the  Tractarians  have  attempted  to  shew  that  there 
is  a  difference  between  their  views  upon  the  subject  of  the  rule  of 
faith  and  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is,  that  they  admit  that  the 
Scripture  contains,  more  or  less  clearly,  everything  which  it  is 
necessary  for  men’s  salvation  to  know  and  believe,  while  the 
Church  of  Rome,  they  allege,  denies  this.  But  it  is  not  true  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  denies  this.  Its  denial  of  it  is  not  necessarily 
involved  in  any  doctrine  to  which  the  Church  of  Rome  is  pledged, 
and  it  has  been  distinctly  admitted  by  many  of  her  leading  writers. 
I  he  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  necessarily  implies  that  there 


TRACTARIANISM. 


451 


are  truths  not  contained  in  Scripture  which  are  conveyed  to  us  by 
traditioD,  and  that  these  truths  are  quite  as  binding  upon  the 
conciences  of  those  to  whom  they  are  propounded,  as  those  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Bible,  and  all  this  is  explicitly  asserted  by  the  Trac- 
tarians ;  but  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not  necessarily 
imply  more  than  this,  and  it  is  a  fact  notorious  to  those  who  are 
acquainted  with  Popish  controversialists,  and  could  scarcely  he 
unknown  to  the  Tractarians  when  they  brought  forward  this  pre¬ 
tence,  that  Cardinal  Bellarmine  and  many  other  defenders  of 
Popery  have  distinctly  admitted  that  the  written  word  contains 
everything  which  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  men’s  salvation  to 
know  and  believe.  This  concession  is  no  doubt  practically  contra¬ 
dicted  by  the  general  strain  of  teaching  ordinarily  exhibited  in 
Popish  writers;  but  this  is  equally  true  of  the  Tractarians.  They 
have  afforded  good  ground  to  suspect  that  they  have  made  this 
concession  just  because  it  is  required  by  the  Articles  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  it  is  rather  a  curious  and  instructive  coincidence, 
that  the  occasion  on  which  Bellarmine  makes  this  concession  most 
fully  is  not  when  he  is  stating  the  general  question  or  discussing 
it  abstractly,  but  when  he  is  called  to  consider  and  answer  the 
clear  testimonies  produced  by  Protestant  writers  from  the  Fathers 
in  support  of  the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures.  It 
was  these  testimonies  that  produced  this  concession,  which  he 
would  probably  have  withheld  if  he  could  have  given  any  plausible 
perversion  of  the  mass  of  patristic  testimonies,  just  as  it  is  the 
Sixth  Article  of  the  Church  of  England  which  has  wrung  this  same 
concession  from  the  Tractarians.  There  is  good  reason  to  suspect 
that  they  would  have  withheld  it  if  they  could;  and,  at  any  rate, 
it  is  plain  that  they  cannot  truly  and  honestly  adduce  it  as  a  point 
in  which  they  differ  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Church  of 
Rome  is  not  pledged  to  any  doctrine  which  obliges  her  of  necessity 
to  deny  that  the  written  word  contains  everything  which  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  men’s  salvation  to  know  and  believe.  Both  Papists  and 
Tractarians  concede  this  in  theory,  and  both  equally  give  pretty  plain 
indications  that  they  would  have  withheld  the  concession,  unless 
the  exigencies  of  their  situation  had  compelled  them  to  make  it. 

The  only  point  connected  with  the  way  and  manner  of  ac¬ 
quiring  a  certain  knowledge  of  the  divine  will  on  which  the 
Tractarians  and  the  Papists  really  differ  is  one  which,  though 


452 


THIRTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


closely  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  rule  of  faith,  does  not 
strictly  and  properly  form  a  part  of  it,  viz.,  the  infallibility  of  the 
church. 

The  Tractarians  are  indeed  nearly  as  much  opposed  to  the  right 
of  private  judgment  as  the  Papists,  and  they  often  talk  of  church 
authority,  and  the  respect  that  is  due  to  it,  in  a  very  Popish  style  ; 
but  they  have  not  yet  ventured  openly  and  explicitly  to  proclaim 
infallibility  as  a  permanent  attribute  of  the  church.  They  have 
been  restrained  from  doing  this  chiefly,  it  would  appear,  from 
there  being  no  church  to  which  they  could  very  decently  or  con¬ 
sistently  ascribe  this  important  property  or  privilege  of  infallibility 
— no  church  to  which  they  could  well  regard  it  as  attaching.  To 
concede  it  to  the  Church  of  Pome  would  of  course  imply,  that  they 
should  immediately  join  her  communion,  for  which  many  of  them 
are  not  yet  fully  prepared,  though  some  of  the  most  able,  learned, 
and  honest  among  them  have  taken  this  step.  To  ascribe  it  to 
the  Anglican  Church,  as  they  love  to  call  it,  would  be  a  little  too 
preposterous;  and  besides,  it  is  well  known  that  they  are  not 
altogether  satisfied  with  the  position  and  constitution  of  this  same 
Anglican  Church.  They  are  not  quite  sure  but  that  ever  since  the 
Peformation  she  has  been  in  a  condition  of  schism,  and  they  are 
pretty  confident  that  at  that  memorable  era,  she  was  tempted, 
through  the  influence  of  the  continental  Reformers,  to  lay  aside  some 
important  Catholic  principles.  In  consequence  of  this  great  prac¬ 
tical  difficulty,  viz.,  the  want  of  a  subject  to  which  the  property  of 
infallibility  could  be  safely  and  decently  ascribed,  they  are  obliged 
in  the  meantime,  though  apparently  very  much  against  their  will, 
to  abstain  from  asserting  infallibility  as  a  permanent  attribute  of 
the  church.  In  all  essential  points  then  concerning  the  rule  of 
faith,  the  Tractarians  agree  with  the  Papists,  and  are  utterly 
unable  to  make  out  any  true  or  tangible  distinction.  They  agree 
with  them  in  denying  the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  or  written  word  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  their  perspicuity 
in  teaching  some  important  doctrines,  of  which  it  is  admitted  that 
they  contain  some  hints  or  notices ;  and  they  agree  with  them  in 
maintaining  the  necessity  and  importance  of  tradition  as  convey¬ 
ing  to  us  some  important  truths  which  are  not  taught  in  Scripture, 
but  which,  as  coming  from  God  through  the  channel  of  tradition, 
are  binding  upon  men’s  consciences  as  a  part  of  the  divine  rule  of 


POPERY  AED  TRACTARIANISM, 


453 


faith  and  practice.  We  wish  you  then  distinctly  to  understand 
that  whatever  errors  we  may  have  occasion  to  expose  in  treating 
of  the  rule  of  faith,  are  errors  which  are  now  maintained  equally 
at  Oxford  and  at  Rome,  equally  by  the  Anglo-Catholics,  as  the 
Tractarians  often  call*  themselves,  and  by  the  ordinary  Papists  who 
openly  acknowledge  the  man  of  sin  as  their  master.  Since  I  have 
been  led  to  advert  to  this  subject,  I  may  take  this  opportunity  of 
mentioning  that  the  Tractarians  have  closely  followed  the  Papists 
in  labouring  to  undermine  and  overthrow  all  the  ordinary  rational 
grounds  of  knowledge  or  certainty  in  regard  to  religious  truth,  and 
have  given  much  countenance,  just  as  the  Papists  have  done,  to 
the  common  infidel  or  Socinian  objections  about  proving  against 
opponents  the  divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  and  establishing  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books 
which  compose  them,  and  have  exaggerated  the  difficulties  attend¬ 
ing  the  certain  discovery  of  their  true  meaning.  They  are  just  as 
unscrupulous  in  throwing  down  the  ordinary  rational  grounds  of 
our  knowledge  upon  these  important  subjects,  that  they  may 
establish  the  authority  of  tradition  or  Catholic  consent,  i.e.  as  they 
explain  it,  the  authority  of  the  church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  cen¬ 
turies,  as  the  Papists  are  in  labouring  to  effect  the  same  object 
that  they  may  establish  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  Tractarians  are  perpetually  declaiming  against  what  they 
call  rationalism ;  they  dishonestly  comprehend  under  this  desig¬ 
nation  at  once  Calvinism  and  Socinianism,  evangelical  and  infidel 
principles,  everything  which  refuses  to  receive  as  handed  down 
from  the  apostles,  all  the  childish  drivelling  and  superstitious  folly, 
all  the  heresy  and  corruption  of  the  fifth  century,  while  all  the 
time  they  are  themselves  betraying  the  cause  of  truly  rational  and 
scriptural  religion,  as  far  as  they  can,  into  the  hands  of  infidels  and 
sceptics.  It  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  Popery 
that  both  directly  and  indirectly  it  tends  so  much  to  promote  the 
cause  of  infidelity,  and  that  many  of  its  defenders  are  so  ready 
and  willing  to  take  up  and  to  urge  infidel  objections  against  the 
foundations  of  our  faith,  and  Socinian  objections  against  the  great 
doctrines  of  Scripture  ;  and  there  is  some  satisfaction,  though  it  is 
of  a  painful  kind,  in  finding  that  tractarianism  has  this  broad  seal  of 
Satan,  this  most  distinct  and  unequivocal  mark  of  the  beast  stamped 
upon  it,  and  that  it  thus  affords  the  most  conclusive  evidence 


454 


THIRTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


that  whatever  appearances  of  piety  some  of  its  leading  promoters 
may  exhibit,  the  system  itself  is,  like  Popery,  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  agency  of  the  father  of  lies  ;  that  it  is  indebted  to  him  for  its 
extraordinary  success,  and  is  employed  by  him  for  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  his  purposes.  The  word  of  God  tells  us  that  Satan 
can  transform  himself  into  an  angel  of  light,  and  the  history  of 
the  church  informs  us  that  he  has  often  employed  for  corrupting 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  for  effecting  results  most  injurious 
to  the  welfare  of  true  religion,  men  who  had  much  appearance  of 
piety  and  devoutness. 

You  will  find  abundant  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  representation 
which  has  now  been  given  of  the  views  and  principles  of  the 
Tractarians,  a  thorough  exposure  of  their  unfair  dealing  in  mis¬ 
representing  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the  divines  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  a  great  amount  of  important  dis¬ 
cussion  and  valuable  information  about  this  whole  subject  of  the 
rule  of  faith  in  the  modern  Tractarian  aspect  of  it,  in  an  admirable 
work  published  a  few  years  ago  in  two  volumes  by  the  Kev. 
William  Goode,  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  England  in  London, 
entitled  The  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice ;  and  you  will 
find  a  very  masterly  exhibition  and  exposure  of  the  principles  of 
these  men,  upon  this  and  other  subjects,  in  a  little  work  on  The 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  by  my  much  esteemed  friend  Dr  James 
Buchanan  of  this  city. 

The  doctrine  of  our  church  upon  this  subject,  in  accordance 
with  that  of  most  other  Protestant  churches,  is  thus  set  forth  in 
the  sixth  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  our  Confession  :  The  whole 
counsel  of  God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory, 
man’s  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced 
from  Scripture,  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added, 
whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit  or  traditions  of  men  and 
the  doctrine  of  Papists  and  Tractarians,  as  set  forth  by  the  decree  of 
the  fourth  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  this  :  “  That  the  truth 
which  Christ  at  first  proclaimed  with  his  own  mouth,  and  afterwards 
ordered  to  be  preached  by  his  apostles  to  every  creature,  is  con¬ 
tained  in  written  books  and  in  unwritten  traditions ;  which  tradi¬ 
tions,  being  received  by  the  apostles  from  Christ’s  own  mouth,  or 
being  delivered  by  the  apostles  themselves  under  the  inspiration  of 


POPERY  AND  TRACTARIANISAL 


455 


tlie  Holy  Spirit,  have  readied  us,  and  that  therefore  the  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  these  traditions,  as  having  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  Christ’s  mouth,  or  having  been  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  preserved  in  unbroken  succession  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  are  to  be  received  and  respected  with  an  equal  feeling  of 
piety  and  reverence.”  The  statement  of  the  truth  upon  this  point 
quoted  from  our  Confession  does  not  formally  refer  to  the  import¬ 
ant  distinction  to  which  we  have  been  led  to  advert,  between  those 
things  which  are  necessary  to  salvation  and  those  which  are  not ; 
and  yet  it  plainly  teaches  not  only  that  those  things  which  are 
necessary  to  salvation  are  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  or  may  be 
deduced  from  them,  but  also  that  everything  which  men  are  under 
an  obligation  to  believe  and  practise  is  to  be  found  there.  The 
subject  of  the  proposition  is  “  the  whole  counsel  of  God  concerning 
all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and 
life.”  It  is  of  course  universally  admitted  that  everything  which 
God  has  revealed  or  enjoined,  it  is  necessary  in  some  sense  for 
men  to  believe  and  to  do ;  in  other  words,  they  are  at  least  under 
an  imperative  obligation  to  believe  or  to  do  it.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  is  necessary  for  men's  salvation  to  believe  or  to  do 
everything  which  God  may  have  revealed  or  enjoined;  in  other 
words,  that  every  degree  of  ignorance  or  mistake  as  to  what  God 
may  have  revealed  or  enjoined  prevents  men’s  salvation.  There 
may  be  things  which,  in  the  words  of  the  Confession,  “  are  neces¬ 
sary  for  faith  and  life,”  i.e.  which  men  are  under  an  obligation  to 
believe  and  to  do,  because  God  has  revealed  them,  and  which 
therefore  ought  to  form  a  part  of  their  belief  and  practice,  which 
yet  may  not  be  necessary  for  their  salvation,  i.e.  ignorance  or 
mistake  about  which  may  not  exclude  them  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  consequently,  when  the  Confession  speaks  of  the 
whole  counsel  of  God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own 
glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  it  comprehends  under  this 
description  everything  which  God  has  revealed  or  enjoined,  every¬ 
thing  which  men,  from  regard  to  God’s  authority,  are  under  an 
oblio’ation  to  believe  or  to  do,  whether  it  be  in  the  sense  above 
explained  necessary  to  their  salvation  or  not ;  and  of  all  those 
things  it  asserts,  that  they  are  contained  in  Scripture  either 
expressly,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence. 

Although  Bellarmine  and  other  Papists  have  been  compelled  by 


456 


THIRTY-SIXTH  LECTURE, 


the  force  of  the  clear  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  to  concede,  in 
general  terms,  that  all  things  necessary  for  men’s  salvation  are 
contained  more  or  less  plainly  in  Scripture,  so  that  there  is  nothing 
the  ignorance  or  unbelief  of  which  will  exclude  men  from  salvation 
about  which  there  is  not  some  information  in  the  Bible,  yet  it  is 
a  common  practice  of  Papists  to  raise  many  difficulties  about  things 
necessary  or  fundamental,  difficulties  as  to  what  the  truths  are 
which  are  necessary  or  fundamental,  and  as  to  how  they  are  to  be 
known  or  distinguished  from  others.  The  subject  is  one  attended 
with  some  difficulty,  but  the  discussion  of  it  is  more  closely  con¬ 
nected  with  the  head  of  the  clearness  or  perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures 
.  in  all  necessary  or  fundamental  points,  as  asserted  in  the  next 
section  of  the  Confession,  than  with  that  which  we  are  at  present 
to  consider,  which  is  the  perfection  or  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures. 
I  may  just  mention  however  in  passing,  tliat  an  important  dis¬ 
tinction  has  been  laid  down  by  some  authors  upon  this  subject, 
which,  though  it  does  not  clear  away  the  difficulties  of  the  question 
by  enabling  us  to  distinguish  with  anything  like  precision  between 
fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals,  between  truths  which  are 
necessary  to  be  known  and  believed  for  man’s  salvation  and  those 
which  in  the  sense  above  explained  are  not,  yet  gives  a  clear  and 
impressive  conception  of  the  general  nature  and  character  of  the 
distinction.  Fundamental  truths,  it  has  been  said,  are  those 
which  have  been  revealed  by  God,  because  it  was  necessary  for 
man’s  salvation  that  they  should  be  known  and  believed ;  and 
non-fundamentals  are  those  which  it  is  necessary  for  men,  or 
rather  incumbent  upon  them,  to  know  and  believe,  just  because 
they  have  been  revealed.  But  the  doctrine  with  which  we  have 
at  present  to  do  is  this,  that  both  these  classes  of  truths,  all  the 
truths  which  men  are  under  any  obligation  to  know,  believe,  and 
practise,  in  virtue  of  God  having  revealed  them,  and  not  merely 
those  which  are  necessary  to  salvation  in  this  sense — that  ignorance 
and  unbelief  of  them  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven — are 
so  revealed  by  God  in  the  Scriptures,  are  contained  in  the  written 
word,  and  are  to  be  sought  and  found  nowhere  else.  Papists  and 
Tractarians  agree  with  us  in  holding  that  there  is  nothing  which 
it  is  binding  upon  men’s  consciences  to  believe  and  to  do,  except 
what  God  has  revealed  and  enjoined,  and  in  regard  to  everything 
which  they  call  upon  men  to  believe  and  to  do,  even  they  profess 


TRADITION'. 


457 


to  produce  some  evidence  that  it  came  from  God ;  and  accordingly 
Papists  are  accustomed  to  call  the  traditions  which  they  require 
men  to  receive  and  to  venerate  the  unwritten  word  of  God,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  written  word,  which  is  the  Bible.  The  question 
then  properly  respects  the  channel  or  channels  through  which  the 
will  of  God  regarding  faith  and  practice  is  conveyed.  Papists  do 
not  require  men  to  give  their  assent  to  any  truths  without  pro¬ 
fessing  to  produce  some  evidence  that  the  truths  came  from  God, 
and  are  based  upon  his  authority ;  and  Protestants,  upon  the 
other  hand,  profess  themselves  ever  ready  and  willing  to  receive 
with  implicit  submission  all  truths  which  can  be  proved  by  any 
competent  satisfactory  evidence  to  have  come  from  that  source  to 
be  based  on  divine  authority.  Protestants,  however,  contend  that 
in  point  of  fact  we  have  not  now  any  other  authentic  and  satisfac¬ 
tory  means  of  ascertaining  what  was  revealed  and  enjoined  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  except  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Papists  and 
Tractarians  maintain  that  there  are  doctrines  and  commands  o^iven 
to  men  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  which  have  been  conveyed  to  us 
by  a  different  channel  from  the  Scriptures,  but  one  equally  authentic 
and  satisfactory,  viz.,  tradition;  and  that  these  therefore  it  is  equally 
our  duty  to  receive  and  obey.  In  short,  Protestants  hold  the 
written  word  to  be  the  sole  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ; 
Papists  and  Tractarians  admit  it  to  be  a  rule,  but  not  the  only 
one,  or  rather  they  admit  it  to  be  a  part  of  the  rule,  but  not  the 
whole  of  it. 

There  is  by  universal  admission  one  authentic  means  or  channel 
of  conveying  to  us  Gods  will — by  the  written  word.  Is  there  any 
other?  Protestants  say  there  is  not.  Papists  and  Tractarians  say 
there  is — by  tradition.  Our  doctrine  is,  that  all  things  which  God 
has  revealed  and  enjoined,  all  things  which  he  has  laid  us  under 
an  obligation  to  believe  or  to  do,  are  either  expressly  set  down 
in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be 
deduced  from  Scripture.”  This  latter  clause,  asserting  the  war¬ 
rantableness  and  obligation  of  Scripture  consequences,  as  they  are 
sometimes  called,  is  added  partly  to  guard  against  some  cavils 
and  objections  of  the  Papists,  and  partly  because  it  declares  an 
important  truth  bearing  upon  the  right  use  and  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  Papists  might  say  to  us  with  some  plausibility,  you 
profess  to  believe  nothing  but  which  is  contained  in  Scripture, 


458 


THIRTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


and  yet  you  hold  many  doctrines  which  you  cannot  point  out  to 
us  as  expressly  asserted  in  the  pages  of  God’s  word.  Now,  we 
must  admit  this  ;  but  we  still  contend,  that  though  not  expressly 
set  down  in  Scripture,  they  may  be  deduced  from  it,  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  Scriptures,  when 
carefully  examined,  when  rightly  used  and  fairly  applied,  contain 
sufficient  materials  for  shewing  that  the  doctrines  we  hold  are 
really  taught  there,  and  that  the  Scriptures  were  intended  to 
teach  them  ;  and  this  is  quite  sufficient  to  answer  the  objection. 
It  is  enough  that  we  can  prove  in  regard  to  any  doctrine  we  hold, 
that  the  Scripture  rightly  understood  and  fairly  applied  affords 
sufficient  materials  for  believing  it,  and  therefore  lays  upon  us  an 
obligation  in  right  reason  to  admit  it.  We  have  the  example  of 
our  Saviour  himself  in  interpreting  Scripture  to  sanction  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture  consequences,  to  warrant,  nay  to  require  us 
to  believe  much  that  is  not  expressly  set  down,  but  may  be 
deduced  by  good  and  necessary  consequence.  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  most  of  his  interpretations  of  Scripture  as  recorded  in  the 
inspired  histories  of  his  life,  he  founded  his  arguments  upon  a 
consequence,  upon  what  was  not  expressly  set  down  in  the  words 
quoted,  but  might  be  fairly  deduced  from  them.  And  we  have  no 
doubt  that  our  Saviour’s  conduct  in  this  matter  was  intended  to 
impress  upon  us  this  most  important  general  lesson,  viz.,  that  by 
a  careful  study  and  a  close  examination  of  the  Bible,  we  may  learn 
from  it  a  great  deal  more  than  what  appears  at  first  view  and 
upon  the  surface,  and  thus  be  enabled  to  use  it  much  more 
habitually  than  is  commonly  supposed,  as  a  light  unto  our  feet 
and.  a  lamp  unto  our  path,  and  to  find  in  it  a  much  more  complete 
directory  than  we  usually  expect  or  discover  for  regulating  our 
opinions  and  our  conduct. 

[Two  other  purposes  to  which  an  objection  to  Scripture  conse¬ 
quence  has  been  applied — first,  Papists  in  the  way  of  calling  for 
an  express  Scripture  declaration  against  their  errors ;  and  second, 
by  Latitudinarians  and  English  dissenters  in  opposing  creeds,  &c., 
except  in  Scripture  words.] 


LECTURE  XXXVII. 


PERFECTION  AND  SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  : 
SCRIPTURAL  EVIDENCE  FOR  IT,  POPISH  ARGUMENTS 
AGAINST  IT. 


rpHIS  then  is  the  doctrine  which  Protestants  maintain  upon  this 
subject;  and  we  have  now  to  advert  to  the  evidence  on  which 
it  rests,  usually  discussed  by  divines  under  the  head  of  the  perfec¬ 
tion  or  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  as  a  branch  of  the  general 
subject  of  the  rule  of  faith.  And  here  it  is  proper  to  consider,  in 
the  first  place,  whether  the  Scriptures  themselves  give  us  any 
information  upon  the  subject,  i.e.  whether  they  tell  us  anything  as 
to  the  source  or  sources  from  which  the  will  of  God  is  to  be  learned, 
anything  as  to  their  own  completeness  and  sufficiency  as  to  the 
object  they  were  intended  to  serve,  and  their  actual  fitness  for 
accomplishing  it.  Some  Popish  writers  object  to  our  seeking  for 
evidence  on  this  point  in  the  statements  of  Scripture,  upon  the 
ground  that,  as  it  is  the  character  of  Scripture  that  is  the  point  in 
question,  the  Scripture  should  not  be  heard,  or  at  least  its  decision 
should  not  be  held  conclusive,  in  its  own  cause.  This  would  be  a 
fair  enough  objection  in  the  mouth  of  an  infidel,  in  regard  to  any 
matter  which  we  were  discussing  with  him  as  an  infidel ;  but  no  one 
professing  to  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  has  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  could  ever  produce 
such  an  objection,  unless  he  were  a  Papist  or  a  Tractarian.  Papists 
and  Protestants  concur  in  holding  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of 
God,  that  all  its  statements  come  from  him,  and  are  in  their  right 
meaning  infallibly  true.  The  Scripture  therefore  forms  a  sort  of 
common  ground  on  which  they  can  meet  and  discuss  their  differ¬ 
ences.  It  is  a  standard  the  authority  of  which  both  parties 


460 


THIRTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


acknowledge ;  and  not  only  therefore  are  they  both  bound  to 
admit  as  true  whatever  it  is  found  to  declare,  concerning  itself  or 
concerninoc  anything,  but  Protestants  moreover  are  entitled  to 
demand,  upon  the  ground  of  the  Popish  admission  that  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God,  and  so  far  a  rule  of  faith — though,  as  Papists 
think,  not  the  only  one — that  Papists  shall  produce  from  the  Bible 
full  warrant  for  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  anything  else 
which  they  may  regard  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith.  We  shewed 
you  how,  even  at  an  earlier  stage  in  the  general  argument,  we  were 
entitled  to  appeal  to  the  statements  of  Scripture  itself  in  regard  to 
its  inspiration,  and  bound  to  assent  to  the  doctrine  which  we  shewed 
you  it  taught,  viz.,  that  this  inspiration  was  plenary,  and  not 
partial,  and  that  it  extended  to  the  words  as  well  as  to  the  senti¬ 
ments.  It  is  still  more  plain  that  we  are  entitled  to  appeal  to, 
and  bound  to  be  guarded  by,  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  if  there 
are  any,  concerning  its  own  perfection  and  sufficiency,  as  revealing 
the  whole  counsel  of  God,  when  our  views  upon  this  subject  are 
contested  by  men  who  agree  with  us  in  believing  that  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  all  given  by  divine  inspiration,  and  that  all  that  they 
assert  is  true.  Now,  it  may  be  admitted  that  we  have  not  such 
express  and  direct  declarations  in  Scripture  in  proof  of  its  own 
perfection,  completeness,  or  sufficiency,  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  as 
we  have  of  its  plenary  inspiration ;  but  we  have  quite  enough 
stated  there  from  which,  either  expressly  or  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence,  the  conclusion  may  be  reached  that  it  contains  the 
whole  counsel  of  God.  The  passage  in  PauFs  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  which,  as  we  formerly  shewed  you,  contains  so  clear  and 
explicit  a  testimony  in  favour  of  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  contains  also  statements  which  establish,  though  not 
quite  so  directly,  this  perfection  and  sufficiency  (hi.  15-17).  Here 
it  is  expressly  asserted  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation.  Of  course  the  state¬ 
ment  must  apply  a  fortiori  to  the  whole  Bible.  Now,  there  is  a 
sense,  as  we  formerly  explained  to  you,  in  which  Papists  and 
Tractarians  admit  that  the  Bible  contains  everything  which  it  is 
necessary  for  man’s  salvation  to  believe  and  to  do,  and  therefore  it 
may  seem  as  if  the  passage  contained  no  solid  argument  against 
their  views.  But  the  sense  in  which  they  admit  this  is  based 
upon  a  distinction  which  has  grown  out  of  modern  speculations 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  SCFJPTUEE. 


461 


and  controversies,  and  which  manifestly  was  not  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  apostle  when  he  wrote  this  declaration,  and  could  not 
have  occurred  to  Timothy  when  he  read  it.  The  apostle  manifestly 
had  here  no  reference  whatever  to  the  distinction  between  those 
things  which  were  necessary  for  men’s  salvation  in  this  sense,  that 
ignorance  of  them  or  error  concerning  them  excluded  them  from 
salvation,  and  these  things  which,  though  not  necessary  for  men’s 
salvation  in  this  sense,  it  was  yet  obligatory  upon  men  by  God’s 
authority  to  believe  and  to  do.  It  is  very  evident  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  and  from  the  general  character  and  scope  of  the  state¬ 
ment,  that  when  the  apostle  asserted  that  the  sacred  Scriptures 
were  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation,  he  meant,  without 
reference  to  any  such  distinction,  to  convey  this  idea,  that  they 
were  amply  sufficient  to  serve  the  whole  purposes  for  which  God 
had  made  a  revelation  of  himself  to  men,  with  a  view  to  their 
salvation,  and  that  there  was  nothing  else  about  which  a  man 
desiring  and  seeking  his  salvation  need  concern  himself  as  a  source 
of  knowledge  and  guidance.  The  same  conclusion  is  also  fairly 
deducible  from  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  verses,  where  divinely 
inspired  Scripture  is  not  only  declared  to  be  profitable  for  certain 
purposes,  which  comprehend  everything  for  which  a  revelation  of 
God’s  will  has  been  given  to  men,  but  where  we  are  further  told 
that  it  was  designed  to  effect,  and  of  course  is  amply  sufficient  to 
effect,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  every  good  work.  If  the  Scripture  was  intended  by  God  to 
effect  this  object,  and  consequently  fitted  by  him  for  its  accom¬ 
plishment,  then  men  need  have  no  doubt  or  hesitation  about 
adopting  the  conclusion  that  in  the  Bible  they  have  the  whole 
counsel  of  God  revealed  for  their  salvation,  and  that  while  it  is 
incumbent  upon  them  to  believe  and  to  do  all  that  is  there  declared 
and  enjoined,  God  has  put  them  under  no  obligation  to  believe  or 
to  do  anything  with  a  view  to  their  salvation  which  is  not  to  be 
found  there  revealed  and  imposed. 

There  are  other  passages  of  Scripture  which  were  plainly 
intended  to  convey  the  same  general  idea,  that  the  written  word 
contains  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  was  intended  to  be  a  complete 
and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  is  amply  adequate  for 
accomplishing  all  the  objects  which  a  revelation  of  God’s  will  was 
intended  to  serve,  such  as  Deut.  iv.  1,  2 ;  Isa.  viii.  20  ;  John  xx. 


462 


THIRTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


80,  31  ;  Acts  xvii.  11,  &c.  Papists  have  tried  to  elude  the  force  of 
these  texts  by  explaining  them  away,  and  seeking  to  throw  diffi¬ 
culties  in  the  way  of  their  establishing  the  conclusions  which  they 
obviously  suggest.  But  it  has  been  fully  shewn  by  Protestant 
writers  that  they  have  not  been  able  to  give  them  any  solid  or 
satisfactory  answer.  Papists  do  not  pretend  to  find  in  Scripture 
any  statement  which  directly  or  by  implication  denies  the  perfec¬ 
tion  and  sufficiency  of  the  Bible,  as  containing  the  whole  counsel 
of  God.  But  they  have  brought  forward  some  considerations  of  a 
general  kind,  which  they  allege  militate  against  its  being  the  only 
rule  of  faith.  Bellarmine  adduces  the  occasional  character  of 
many  of  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament,  as  an 
objection  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  upon  this  subject,  i.e.  the 
fact  that  some  of  the  epistles  were  written  as  it  were  'pro  re  nata, 
to  serve  some  temporary  or  local  purpose.  This  is  in  a  certain 
sense  true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  Papists  infer  from  it  that 
writings  which  were  in  some  sense  suggested  by,  and  primarily 
designed  to  effect  some  local  or  temporary  object,  could  not  have 
been  intended  by  God  to  be  a  complete  permanent  rule  to  the 
church.  Here,  as  everywhere  else  in  regard  to  the  rule  of  faith, 
there  is  a  perfect  harmony  between  the  views  of  the  Papists  and 
the  Tractarians.  Now,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  fact  here 
founded  on  by  the  Papists  and  the  Tractarians  is,  as  you  might 
suppose,  one  of  which  latitudinarian  and  semi-infidel  divines 
make  much  use,  and  which  is  in  special  favour  with  the  German 
rationalists.  These  men  employ  it  for  the  purpose  of  shewing 
that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  New  Testament  was  so  entirely 
local  and  temporary  in  its  design  or  object,  that  it  is  of  little  or  no 
use  to  us,  contains  little  that  we  have  any  concern  in,  and  that  it  may 
be  explained,  or  explained  away,  by  a  reference  to  the  local  or 
temporary  peculiarities  in  which  it  seems  to  have  originated.  This 
notion  has  been  very  extensively  and  very  mischievously  applied 
by  continental  writers  to  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
under  the  name  of  what  many  of  them  call  the  historical  sense  of 
ure.  But  we  have  to  do  with  it  at  present  merely  in  so  far 
as  it  is  made  the  basis  of  the  Papist  and  Tractarian  inference  in 
regard  to  the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  in  general. 
And  with  reference  to  this  point,  it  is  very  manifest  that  the  fact 
of  some  of  the  epistles  having  been  in  some  sense  suggested  by 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


463 


local  or  temporary  circumstances  does  not,  considering  that  they 
are  admitted  to  have  been  written  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  afford  any  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  they  do  not 
afford  any  materials  fitted  to  guide  and  direct  us — a  conclusion 
which  if  true  would  only  tend  to  shew  that  they  ought  not  to  have 
formed  part  of  the  canon  at  all — and  still  less,  if  possible,  for  the 
conclusion  that  they,  along  with  the  other  books  of  Scripture, 
which  were  not  written  occasionally,  or  pro  re  nata,  do  not  con¬ 
tain  the  whole  revelation  by  which  God  intended  to  provide  for 
the  permanent  regulation  of  the  church,  and  to  guide  men  to  the 
knowledge  and  enjoyment  of  himself.  This  is  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  Popish  and  Tractarian  inference  from  it  is  unfounded  ; 
but  it  is  proper  before  leaving  this  topic  to  observe  that  we  have 
a  striking  instance  of  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God  in  employing 
and  overruling  the  temporary  and  local  circumstances  in  which  in 
a  certain  sense  some  of  these  epistles  had  their  origin,  for  producing 
works  fitted  permanently  to  instruct  and  edify  the  church  of  Christ ; 
and  that  in  the  humble  and  prayerful  study  of  the  apostolic  epistles 
we  can  see  how  admirably  fitted  they  are  to  serve  at  once  a 
temporary  and  a  permanent,  a  local  and  a  universal  object.  If 
the}^  were  intended  to  have  a  place  in  the  canon  at  all — and  this  of 
course  Papists  and  Tractarians  concede — then  they  must  have  been 
designed  by  God,  and  are  therefore  fitted,  to  serve  permanent  and 
universal,  as  well  as  temporary  and  local  purposes.  We  can  see 
that  this  is  really  the  case  when  we  carefully  examine  them,  and 
if  they  are  fitted  and  intended  to  serve  permanently  as  a  part  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  therefore  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  there  can  be  no  possible  ground  in  the  circumstance  of 
their  having  originated  in  some  sense  in  a  local  and  temporary 
cause,  for  denying  or  even  doubting  that  they  along  with  the  other 
hooks  of  Scripture  may  contain  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  the 
whole  of  the  revelation  by  which  he  intended  to  guide  men  to 
the  knowledge,  worship,  and  enjoyment  of  himself. 

Bellarmine  has  another  general  argument  to  prove  that  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  not  intended  to  convey  the 
whole  of  the  information  which  God  designed  to  communicate  to 
the  church  concerning  the  Christian  system.  It  is  this,  that  if  the 
apostles  had  intended  to  convey  to  us  in  writing  the  whole  of  what 
was  necessary  and  profitable,  they  would  have  written  a  catechism 


464 


THIRTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


or  some  such  summary  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  would  all 
have  united  together  in  preparing  some  joint  writing,  just  as  it 
is  certain,  he  says,  that  they  all  united  together  in  composing  the 
creed,  which  however  they  did  not  write,  but  delivered  viva  voce 
(lib.  iv.  chap.  4).  I  do  not  recollect  that  the  Tractarians  have 
formally  and  directly  adduced  this  as  an  argument  in  support  of 
the  imperfection  and  insufficiency  which  they  ascribe  to  the 
written  Word ;  but  they  have  shewn  their  full  sympathy  with  the 
general  spirit  and  scope  of  the  objection  by  the  importance  which 
they  attach  to  the  creed,  by  ascribing  it,  in  the  face  of  undoubted 
historical  evidence,  to  the  apostles,  and  by  distinctly  declaring  it 
to  be  a  part  of  the  divine  rule  of  faith.  You  will  find  a  very 
curious  and  instructive  exposure  of  their  conduct  in  this  matter  in 
the  fourth  chapter  of  Goode  s  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,^ 
and  you  will  see  that  it  is  not  unworthy  of  accomplished  Jesuits. 
The  argument  itself  is  a  mere  piece  of  folly  and  presumption.  It 
is  a  pure  begging  of  the  whole  question,  for  it  plainly  assumes  that 
the  Scriptures  are  not  fitted  to  be  a  sufficient  or  complete  rule  of 
faith,  because  they  contain  no  formal  creed,  catechism,  or  general 
summary ;  and  from  this  assumed  insufficiency  or  imperfection  of 
the  Scriptures,  it  draws  the  inference  that  they  were  not  really 
intended  to  serve  that  purpose.  And  while  it  thus  manifestly 
assumes  the  point  in  dispute,  it  presumes  to  dictate  to  God 
how  the  Scriptures  must  have  been  composed,  and  what  they 
must  have  contained,  in  order  to  render  them  adequate  to  serve 
the  purpose  for  which  they  themselves  tell  us  that  God  designed 
them. 

While  the  Papists  do  not  allege  that  the  Scriptures  contain  any 
statements  which  deny  their  own  perfection  and  sufficiency,  or 
assert  their  own  imperfection  and  insufficiency,  they  contend  that 
they  afford  materials  for  the  conclusion  that  they  are  themselves 
imperfect  and  insufficient,  by  sending  us  to  other  sources  for 
authentic  and  infallible  information  concerning  the  divine  will, 
viz.,  to  tradition  and  to  the  church.  If  this  position  were  estab¬ 
lished,  it  would  afford  them  some  ground  for  their  doctrine,  that 
the  written  word  is  not  the  only  rule  of  faith,  the  only  source  from 
which  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  men’s  salvation  may  be  certainly 

^  Title  of  the  ehapter,  “  That  there  are  no  writings  extant  entitled  to  the  name 
of  apostolical  traditions  hut  the  canonical  Scriptures.  ” 


TRADITION. 


4G5 


learned,  the  only  source  from  which  an  obligation  may  be  deduced 
as  to  what  we  are  to  believe  and  to  do.  This  is  a  favourite  notion 
with  Popish  writers,  some  of  whom,  after  being  constrained  to 
concede  that  in  some  sense  the  Scriptures  may  be  said  to  contain 
all  that  is  necessary  for  salvation,  virtually  retract  or  explain 
away  the  concession,  by  saying  that  they  contain  all  that  is  neces¬ 
sary,  either  in  their  own  statements,  or  by  sending  us  to  tradition 
and  the  church  for  whatever  more  may  be  necessary  in  order  to 
form  a  complete  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  with  tradition  only 
we  have  at  present  to  do,  the  church  will  be  afterwards  considered. 

The  main  proof  which  they  commonly  adduce  that  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  authorises  unwritten  traditions,  and  sends  us  to  them 
for  authentic  information  concerning  God’s  will' is, ‘‘Therefore, 
brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been 
taught,  whether  by  word,  or  by  our  epistle”  (2  Thess.  ii.  15). 
Now,  this  proves  that  the  Thessalonians,  and  of  course  other 
churches,  were  just  as  much  bound  to  submit  and  adhere  to  the 
oral  as  to  the  written  instructions  of  the  apostles.  It  proves  this, 
but  it  proves  nothing  more.  Nothing  more  can  be  deduced  from 
it  by  good  and  necessary  consequence.  Now,  this  is  a  position 
which  no  Protestant  disputes,  and  which  does  not  in  the  least  aid 
the  Popish  cause.  There  is  nothing  here  which  affords  the 
slightest  ground  for  believing  that  the  oral  instructions  delivered 
by  the  apostles  were  intended  to  be  preserved  and  handed  down 
for  the  future  guidance  of  the  church.  That  they  were  binding 
upon  all  to  whom  they  were  addressed  is  unquestionable,  but  this 
proves  nothing  as  to  their  intended  future  permanent  use  and 
destination.  We  are  still  perfectly  willing  to  receive  and  submit 
to  everything,  in  regard  to  which  we  have  reasonable  evidence  set 
before  us  that  the  apostles  delivered  it  as  matter  of  public  instruc¬ 
tion  to  the  churches.  The  Thessalonians  knew  what  traditions 
the  apostles  had  orally  delivered  to  them.  They  had  conclusive 
evidence  that  they  came  from  him,  and  this  was  enough.  They 
were  bound  to  hold  them  fast.  Let  the  Papists,  or  the  Tractarians, 
or  any  sect,  produce  any  traditions,  and  produce  at  the  same  time 
sufficient  and  satisfactory  evidence  that  these  traditions  were 
delivered  by  the  apostles  as  matters  of  public  instruction  to  the 
churches,  and  we  will  at  once  submit  to  them,  and  receive  them  as 
part  of  our  rule  of  faith. 


466 


THIRTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


But  as  the  Scriptures  lead  us  to  expect  to  find  the  will  of  God 
in  the  written  word,  as  they  give  no  hint  that  we  are  to  find  it 
anywhere  else,  and  especially  never  hint  that  it  was  to  be  conveyed 
from  generation  to  generation  by  oral  tradition,  we  do  not  feel 
ourselves  called  upon  to  be  at  much  pains  in  searching  for  any 
oral  traditions  of  what  was  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles;  and 
we  do  feel  ourselves  bound  to  insist  that  anything  which  is  pressed 
upon  us,  as  a  tradition  handed  down  from  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
shall  in  each  particular  case  be  accompanied  with  satisfactory 
evidence  that  it  did  proceed  from  them.  We  ask  this,  we  ask  for 
nothing  more  ;  and  from  a  regard  to  our  own  character  as  rational 
beings,  as  well  as  deference  for  the  authority  of  Scripture,  we  can 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  less.  There  are  two  or  three  other 
passages  of  a  similar  import  in  the  apostolic  epistles,  which  are 
also  usually  quoted  by  the  Papists  in  support  of  tradition,  but  they 
imply  nothing  more  than  this,  that  the  churches  were  bound  to 
receive  and  adhere  to  all  the  oral  traditions  which  the  apostles 
had  delivered  to  them.  The  only  other  thing  which  the  Papists 
have  to  adduce  in  support  of  their  allegation  that  the  Scriptures 
send  us  to  tradition  for  authentic  information  as  to  God’s  will,  is 
the  fact  indicated  by  Scripture  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  spoke 
much  in  the  way  of  public  instruction  that  is  not  contained  in  the 
written  word.  This  is  quite  true,  but  nothing  to  the  purpose.  We 
say  again.  Let  them  produce  any  of  these  things,  and  prove  that 
they  proceeded  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  we  will  at  once 
submit  to  them.  The  question,  whether  or  not  any  such  traditions 
have  been  in  fact  preserved,  and  can  now  be  produced  and  satis¬ 
factorily  established  to  have  come  from  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
will  be  afterwards  adverted  to  ;  but  it  is  enough  in  the  meantime, 
and  with  reference  to  the  present  argument,  to  observe  that  the 
Scripture,  while  it  affords  ground  to  believe  that  much  instruction 
was  given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  which  is  not  recorded  in  the 
Bible,  gives  us  no  hint  that  it  was  to  be  preserved  and  handed 
down  by  tradition,  but  on  the  contrary  gives  us  good  reason  for 
the  conviction  that  the  written  word  not  only  contains  all  that  is 
necessary  to  guide  men  individually  to  salvation,  but  all  by  which 
God  intended  to  provide  for  the  future  permanent  instruction  and 
edification  of  his  church,  and  thought  necessary  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  that  end.  The  Papists  allege  that  the  Scriptures  them- 


TRADITION. 


467 


selves  send  us  to  tradition,  and  send  us  to  the  church,  for  authentic 
information  as  to  the  will  of  God.  But  the  general  character  of 
the  proofs  they  adduce  in  support  of  one  part  of  this  allegation 
differs  materially  from  that  of  those  brought  forward  in  support  of 
the  other.  With  regard  to  the  church  they  can  shew  that  our 
attention  is  directed  to  it  in  Scripture  as  a  permanent  thing,  that 
statements  are  made  there  with  respect  to  its  duties  and  functions 
concerning  the  truth,  that  some  respect  is  to  be  paid  to  its 
authority,  and  that  promises  are  made  as  to  Christ’s  presence  with 
it,  and  its  consequent  permanence  and  sufficiency  for  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  certain  important  objects.  If  the  Popish  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  declarations  and^  promises  of  Scripture  concerning  the 
church  be  correct,  then  they  establish  the  church’s'  infallibility  in 
declaring  the  will  of  God,  and  of  course  would  impose  upon  us  a 
valid  obligation  to  receive  its  decisions,  if  we  knew  what  they 
were,  and  where  they  were  to  be  found,  as  certainly  declaring  the 
mind  of  God.  But  these  proofs  that  the  Scripture  sends  us  to 
tradition  to  learn  the  divine  will  from  it  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of 
faith,  have  not  even  the  appearance  of  establishing  the  point  for 
which  they  are  adduced.  They  prove  merely  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles  delivered  instructions  which  are  not  recorded  in  Scripture, 
and  that  the  men  and  the  churches  to  whom  these  oral  instructions 
were  addressed — and  we  admit  it  follows  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence,  all  to  whom  they  are  at  any  time  propounded, 
accompanied  with  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  came  from 
Christ  and  his  apostles — are  bound  to  receive  them.  Now,  all  this 
may  be  safely  admitted,  and  does  not  enable  the  Papists  to 
advance  a  single  step  towards  proving  that  the  written  word  does 
not  now  contain  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  or  that  there  are  still 
any  other  truths  resting  on  God’s  authority  which  are  not  contained 
in  the  sacred  writings,  but  have  been  authentically  conveyed  to 
us  in  some  other  way. 

There  is  another  consideration,  much  insisted  upon  by  Papists, 
to  prove  that  the  written  word  is  not  the  only  rule  of  faith,  though 
indeed  it  is  scarcely  deserving  of  notice.  It  is  this,  that  there 
was  no  written  revelation  for  more  than  2000  years  after  the 
creation  of  the  world,  till  the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  during'  the 
apostolic  age  the  rule  of  faith  was  not  written,  but  oral ;  and  they 
labour  to  build  upon  these  facts  a  presumption  against  the  perfect 


468 


THIRTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


tion  and  sufficiency  of  the  written  word,  and  in  favour  of  the 
sufficiency  of  oral  tradition.  But  these  facts  are  really  nothing  to 
the  purpose,  and  afford  no  ground  for  any  such  inferences.  The 
question  is  not  what  means  God  may  have  been  pleased  to  give  to 
other  ages  of  knowing  his  will,  but  what  means  he  has  been 
pleased  to  give  to  us.  The  rapidity  with  which  the  knowledge  of 
the  one  true  God,  when  left  to  oral  tradition,  disappeared  from 
the  world,  and  the  extent  to  which,  even  in  a  very  early  age, 
idolatry  prevailed  among  men,  notwithstanding  the  great  age  to 
which  the  patriarchs  attained,  and  the  consequently  small  number 
of  hands  through  which  the  traditionary  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
true  religion  passed,  doe^  certainly  not  afford  any  satisfactory 
evidence  of  the  value  or  sufficiency  of  oral  tradition  for  trans¬ 
mitting:  from  g:eneration  to  generation  a  knowledge  even  of  the 
most  simple  and  elementary  truths,  even  of  those  great  truths,  the 
evidence  of  which  has  a  clear  foundation  in  the  nature  of  man 
and  in  the  external  universe.  It  was  a  great  privilege  which  God 
gave  to  his  ancient  people  when  he  imparted  to  them  a  written 
revelation  of  his  will ;  and  we  have  certainly  no  reason  to  think 
that  they  acted  in  a  way  that  was  acceptable  to  him  or  beneficial 
to  themselves,  when  they  added  to  that  written  word  oral  tradi¬ 
tions.  God  may  preserve  some  knowledge  of  himself  among  men 
without  a  written  revelation ;  but  it  is  in  entire  accordance  with 
the  universal  experience  of  men,  that  authentic  instruction  as  to 
what  men  should  think  and  do  will  be  more  accurately  and  more 
certainly  preserved  when  committed  to  writing  than  when  merely 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation  by  oral  tradition. 
And  the  act  of  God  in  giving  us  a  written  revelation  abundantly 
confirms  this  position.  It  was  indeed  some  time  after  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Christian  system,  i.e.  after  Christ’s  ascension  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  before  the  books  which  compose  the 
New  Testament  were  written.  But  even  during  this  interval,  as  we 
learn  from  the  passage  to  which  we  have  adverted  in  Paul’s  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which 
was  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  no  time  was  lost  in  making  provision 
for  preparing  an  authentic  written  revelation,  and  before  the  first 
generation  passed  away,  putting  the  truth  of  God  concerning  the 
most  important  of  all  his  dispensations  to  man  beyond  the  reach 


TRADITION. 


469 


of  the  risks  and  hazards  to  which  its  bein^  consigned  to  tradition 
would  have  subjected  it.  We  know,  both  from  statements  con¬ 
tained  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  and  from  authentic  ecclesias¬ 
tical  history,  that  the  apostles  were  led,  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  make  provision  for  the  future  instruction 
and  edification  of  the  church  after  they  should  be  taken  away,  to 
commit  the  history  of  the  life  and  discourses  of  their  Master,  and 
the  substance  of  their  own  oral  instructions,  to  written  records. 
All  that  they  wrote  with  this  view,  under  the  guidance  of  God’s 
Spirit,  has,  in  his  good  providence,  been  preserved — though  this  is 
denied  by  all  Papists,  and  by  some  others — and  transmitted  to  us. 
It  seems  in  every  way  amply  sufficient  to  give  us  full  information 
concerning  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  we  do  not  now  possess 
any  other  means  of  knowing,  with  anything  like  precision  or 
accuracy,  what  Christ  and  his  apostles  made  known  to  men  or 
enjoined  upon  them.  (Rev.  xxii.  18.) 


LECTURE  XXXVIII. 


TRADITION:  ITS  ALLEGED  NECESSITY  PROVED  BY 

INSTANCES. 


The  consideratioDS  which  have  hitherto  been  adduced  upon 
this  subject  have  borne  chiefly  upon  the  question  of  the 
perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of 
faith,  and  not  directly  upon  the  question  of  the  necessity  and 
value  of  tradition,  the  great  rival  which  Papists  and  Tractarians 
set  up  to  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  written  word.  There  is 
another  argument  of  which  both  these  parties  make  large  and 
liberal  use,  which  is  perhaps  the  most  important  and  plausible 
they  have,  and  which  if  valid  would  tend  at  once,  by  one  and  the 
same  process,  both  to  disprove  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of 
the  written  word,  and  to  establish  the  necessity  and  authority 
of  unwritten  tradition.  It  is  in  substance  tliis,  that  there  are 
doctrines  which  are  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  which  are 
true,  many  of  them  admitted  even  by  the  opposers  of  tradition, 
and  which  are  received  as  true,  and  as  coming  from  God,  only 
because  tradition  has  taught  them.  If  this  general  position 
could  be  established,  it  would  go  far  to  effect  the  great  object 
which  Papists  and  Tractarians  have  in  view.  Of  course  its 
validity  depends  wholly  upon  the  production  and  establishment 
of  the  particular  instances  of  the  doctrines  to  which  it  is  alleged 
to  apply ;  and  hence  it  is  of  importance  to  consider  carefully  what 
must  be  proved  in  regard  to  the  particular  instances  of  the 
doctrines  by  which  this  general  position  is  alleged  to  be  estab¬ 
lished.  In  regard  to  all  the  instances  of  doctrines  adduced  for 
this  purpose,  it  must  be  proved — first,  that  the  particular  doctrine 
belongs  to  that  class  of  truths  of  which  Protestants  allege  that 


TRADITION. 


471 


the  written  word  is  the  exclusive  standard  and  depository,  viz., 
the  counsel  of  God  revealed  for  man’s  salvation;  second,  that 
the  doctrine  is  true,  and  one  which  it  is  obligatory  upon  men  to 
believe ;  and  third,  that  it  is  not  made  known  by  Scripture,  but 
is  learned  only  from  tradition.  All  these  things  must  be  proved 
of  any  particular  doctrine  which  is  brought  forward  as  a  specimen 
or  instance  to  prove  the  general  position  stated  above,  which 
constitutes  the  argument  we  are  now  considering  against  the 
perfection  of  the  written  word,  and  in  favour  of  the  necessity  and 
authority  of  oral  tradition.  One  good  and  undoubted  instance 
answering  these  conditions  would  be  sufficient  to  establish  the 
general  principle,  but  no  instance  will  be  of  any  avail  in  estab¬ 
lishing  it  unless  all  these  conditions  can  be  clearly  shewn  to 
attach  to  it.  Now,  in  regard  to  all  the  instances  of  doctrines 
usually  adduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians  in  support  of  this 
general  position,  we  assert,  and  undertake  to  prove,  that  they  fail 
in  answering  some  one  or  more  of  these  obviously  reasonable  and 
indispensable  conditions;  in  other  words,  to  prove  in  regard  to 
each  of  them  that  it  does  not  belong  to  that  class  of  truths  of 
which  we  hold  the  Bible  tQ  be  'the  exclusive  standard  and 
depository;  or,  that  it  is  not  true,  and  that  we  are  not  under  any 
obligation  to  believe  it ;  or,  that  it  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  and 
may  be  fairly  deduced  from  a  careful  examination  of  its  state¬ 
ments  without  the  necessity  of  calling  in  tradition.  By  the  proof 
of  any  one  of  these  positions  in  regard  to  any  instance  alleged,  it 
is  manifestly  deprived  of  all  force  or  validity  for  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  adduced,  of  all  fitness  to  establish  the  general  principle 
by  which  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of  Scripture  are  assailed. 

The  instances  commonly  adduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians 
in  support  of  this  general  position  are  of  two  classes — first,  that 
containing  doctrines  of  which  it  is  alleged  that  there  is  no  infor¬ 
mation  given  us  in  Scripture ;  and  second,  that  containing 
doctrines — and  these  usually  respect  matters  of  greater  intrinsic 
importance — which,  though  there  may  be  hints  or  notices  of  them 
in  Scripture,  it  is  said,  could  not  be  fully  understood  as  received 
and  held  by  the  orthodox  church,  and  could  not  be  clearly  and 
conclusively  established  by  Scripture  alone,  without  the  help  of 
tradition.  The  latter  class  belong  partly  to  what  is  usually 
discussed  under  the  head  of  our  present  subject,  viz.,  the  perfection 


472 


TIIIRTY-EIGETII  LECTURE, 


of  the  Scriptures,  and  partly  to  that  of  the  perspicuity  or  clear¬ 
ness  of  the  Scriptures,  which  we  are  afterwards  to  consider ;  but 
most  authors  have  discussed  them  together  at  this  stage  of  the 
argument  which  we  have  now  reached.  The  instances  adduced 
in  support  of  this  general  position  of  Tractarians  are  the  very 
same  as  those  usually  brought  forward  by  the  advocates  of 
Popery ;  and  indeed  the  argument  itself,  as  well  as  the  proofs  of 
it,  are  manifestlv  borrowed  from  them.  The  Tractarians  have 

4/ 

laboured  this  point  much.  Mr  Goode  has  made  a  very  full 
collection  of  the  doctrines  which  they  have  brought  forward  for 
the  purpose  of  overthrowing  the  perfection  of  Scripture,  and 
establishing  the  authority  of  tradition  or  catholic  consent  upon 
the  principle  of  the  argument  which  has  just  been  explained, 
and  I  will  lay  before  you  his  list  of  them.  The  more  important 
and  fundamental  truths  in  regard  to  which  Papists  and  Tractarians 
allege  that,  though  there  may  be  some  obscure  hint  or  notice  of 
them  in  the  Scripture,  yet  that  they  cannot  be  fully  understood 
and  conclusively  established  by  Scripture  alone  without  the  help 
of  tradition,  are  the  pre-existence  and  incarnation  of  Christ,  the 
consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  and  the  divinity 
and  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now,  in  regard  to  all  these  doctrines,  we  assert  and  undertake 
to  prove — first,  as  an  argiimentum  ad  homines,  that  the  Fathers 
whose  statements  constitute  the  tradition  or  catholic  consent 
which  they  call  in  to  support  the  deficiencies  of  Scripture  upon 
these  points,  maintained  that  these  doctrines  were  sufficiently  re¬ 
vealed  in  and  could  be  fully  established  from  Scripture  ;  and  second, 
that  we  can  produce  from  the  written  word  sufficient  evidence  for 
all  that  we  believe  and  regard  as  binding  concerning  those  sub¬ 
jects,  and  that  in  regard  to  any  explanation  concerning  those 
mysterious  points  which  may  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
orthodox  Fathers,  we  receive  them  or  care  about  them  no  farther 
than  they  can  be  shewn  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  statements  of 
Scripture.  In  alleging,  and  in  endeavouring  to  establish  the 
unsatisfactory  character  of  scriptural  information  and  evidence  in 
regard  to  these  important  doctrines,  Papists  and  Tractarians  mani¬ 
fest,  in  a  very  striking  and  melancholy  way,  the  spirit  by  which 
they  are  animated,  and  the  tendency  of  the  doctrines  they  teach. 
And  indeed  some  of  them  in  discussing  this  subject  have  not 


TRADITION. 


473 


scrupled  to  bring  forward  and  urge  all  the  common  Socinian  objec¬ 
tions  against  these  great  doctrines,  and  then  they  go  on  to  insinuate 
that  it  is  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  answer  these  Socinian 
objections  upon  scriptural  grounds,  and  without  calling  in  to  our 
aid  the  authority  of  tradition.  Father  Simon,  as  he  is  commonly 
called,  a  very  learned  and  ingenious  Popish  writer,  who  however, 
it  ought  to  be  mentioned,  laboured  so  openly  and  so  anxiously 
to  overturn  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  professedly  that  he  might 
establish  upon  its  ruins  that  of  tradition  and  the  church,  that  he 
has  been  regarded  by  many  as  an  infidel  at  heart,  though  he  lived 
and  died  a  Popish  priest,  says  expressly  in  the  preface  to  the 
second  edition  of  his  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament,  that 
‘^without  tradition  we  cannot  answer  the  Socinians;”^  and  Dr 
Hook,  the  present  vicar  of  Leeds,  though  not  usually  reckoned 
quite  so  Popish  as  some  of  the  Tractarians,  has  thought  proper 
to  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  the  most  unprincipled  and  worthless 
class  of  Papists,  and  to  assert  of  those  who  refuse  to  admit  the 
authority  of  tradition,  i.e.  of  the  great  body  of  Protestants,  that 
it  is  only  on  account  of  their  being  bad  logicians  that  they  are 
not  Socinians  ^ — a  statement  which,  as  coming  from  a  professed 
Trinitarian,  ought  to  be  regarded  with  the  most  decided  repro¬ 
bation,  as  an  act  of  unprincipled  treachery  to  what  he  professes 
to  believe  to  be  an  important  truth,  since  it  just  amounts  in  plain 
terms  to  an  assertion  that  in  an  exact  logical  argument  upon 
scriptural  statements  the  Socinian  is  entitled  to  the  victory. 

The  other  class  of  doctrines  adduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians 
in  support  of  this  argument,  those,  viz.,  of  which  it  is  said  that 
Scripture  gives  us  no  information  and  no  proof,  and  which  are 
known  and  established  only  by  tradition,  is  a  somewhat  large  one, 
and  in  regard  to  some  of  the  points  included  in  it,  it  is  to  be 
remarked,  of  both  Papists  and  Tractarians,  that  though,  when  they 
are  labouring  to  establish  by  this  means  the  imperfection  and 
insufficiency  of  Scripture,  and  the  necessity  and  authority  of  tradi¬ 
tion,  they  represent  them  as  not  revealed  in  Scripture,  yet  when 
this  object  is  not  in  their  view,  and  when  they  are  discussing  these 
doctrines  by  themselves,  they  admit  that  there  are  arguments  to 
be  found  in  support  of  them  in  the  written  word.  Bellarmine,  for 
instance,  when  treating  De  Verho  Dei,  and  endeavouring  to  shew 
’  Le  Clerc,  Sentimens  27.  *  Goode,  vol.  i.  p.  65. 


474 


THIRTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


the  necessity  of  tradition,  adduces  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism 
as  a  doctrine  not  taught  in  Scripture,  and  resting  only  on  tradi¬ 
tion  (tom.  i.  p.  70),  while  in  discussing  the  subject  of  baptism  itself, 
and  treating  De  Baptismo  Infantum  contra  Anabaptistas  (tom. 
iii.  p.  109),  he  adduces  scriptural  evidence  amply  sufficient  to 
establish  it.  The  instances  commonly  given  under  this  head 
respect  both  matters  of  belief  and  matters  of  practice — the  latter 
being  chiefly  connected  with  external  rites  and  observances.  The 
following  is  Mr  Goode’s  list  of  the  instances  adduced  by  Trac- 
tarians  of  points  of  faith  and  practice  not  revealed  and  proved  by 
Scripture,  but  established  and  rendered  obligatory  by  the  authority 
of  tradition  alone,  and  all  these  points  are  minutely  and  fully  dis¬ 
cussed  by  Mr  Goode,  and  shewn  to  be  inapplicable  to  the  purpose 
for  which  Papists  and  Tractarians  adduce  them  : — 

“  The  consubstantiality  of  tlie  Son  with  the  Father,  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  that  the  Father  is  unbegotten,  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  the  literal  non¬ 
acceptation  of  the  Lord’s  words  respecting  washing  one  another’s  feet,  the 
non-observance  of  the  seventh  day  as  a  day  of  religious  rest,  infant  baptism, 
the  sanctification  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
Eucharist,  the  identity  of  our  mode  of  consecration  in  the  Eucharist  with  the 
apostolical,  that  consecration  by  apostolical  authority  is  essential  to  the  par¬ 
ticipation  of  the  Eucharist,  the  separation  of  the  clergy  from  the  people  as  a 
distinct  order,  the  threefold  order  of  the  priesthood,  the  government  of  the 
church  by  bishops,  the  apostolical  succession,  baptismal  regeneration,  the 
virtue  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  commemorative  sacrifice,  an  intermediate  state, 
Christ’s  descent  to  hell,  the  validity  of  the  baptism  of  heretics,  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  that  Melchisedec’s  feast  is  a  type  of  the  Eucharist,  that  the 
book  of  Canticles  represents  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  church,  that 
Wisdom  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  refers  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity, 
and  the  alleged  perpetual  virginity  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord.” 

These  are  the  contents  of  the  eight  chapters  of  Goode’s  Divine 
Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,  vol.  ii.  It  would  be  a  waste  of 
time  and  out  of  place  to  discuss  them  here.  We  may  advert  to 
one  or  two  of  the  principal  of  them,  merely  as  specimens  of  the 
way,  or  rather  of  the  different  ways,  in  which  it  may  be  shewn  that 
they  all  fail  in  answering  one  or  more  of  the  conditions  formerly 
laid  down  as  indispensable  to  their  validity,  as  instances  in  support 
of  the  general  position  for  the  establishment  of  which  they  are 
adduced.  The  most  important  of  them  all,  in  some  respects,  is  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  and  they  usually  comprehend,  also  under  this 


TRADITION. 


475 


head,  the  subject  of  inspiration.  The  way  in  which  the  objection 
upon  this  point  is  put  by  Papists  and  Tractarians  is  this  :  They 
say  to  us,  you  profess  to  believe  as  true  doctrines  that  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  certain  particular  books  compose  it, 
but  you  do  not  find  these  doctrines  in  the  Bible  itself,  they  are  not 
taught  or  revealed  there.  You  learn  them  from  tradition,  and 
believe  them  upon  its  authority,  and  here  therefore  is  an  instance 
of  an  important  truth  not  learned  from  Scripture,  but  from  tradi¬ 
tion,  and  consequently  a  proof  of  the  imperfection  and  insufficiency 
of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  necessity  and  authority  of  tradition.  Now, 
our  answer  to  this  objection  is  this  :  1.  We  can  prove  the  truth 
of  these  doctrines  about  the  divine  origin  and  canonical  authority 
of  the  Bible  by  satisfactory  and  conclusive  evidence,  and  can 
establish  them  against  all  gainsayers,  whether  infidels  who  openly 
deny  them,  or  Papists  and  Tractarians  who,  without  openly  denying 
them,  labour  to  undermine  the  force  of  many  of  the  arguments  by 
which  they  may  be  and  should  be  established.  The  truth  of  this 
position  we  have  already  had  occasion  fully  to  illustrate.  2.  These 
doctrines  of  the  inspiration  and  canonical  authority  of  the  books 
of  Scripture  do  not  come  under  the  class  of  truths  of  which  Pro¬ 
testants  contend  that  the  Bible  is  the  exclusive  standard  and 
depository,  but  are  from  their  very  nature  preliminary  or  antece¬ 
dent.  The  proper  state  of  the  question  between  Protestants  and 
Papists  upon  this  subject  of  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of 
Scripture  is  this  :  It  being  admitted  on  both  sides  that  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God,  and  consists  of  certain  books  (for  on  the  canon 
of  the  New  Testament  embracing  all  the  subjects  on  which  tradi¬ 
tions,  alleged  to  he  handed  down  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  are 
brought  to  bear,  Protestants  and  Papists  are  of  one  mind),  the 
question  is,  have  we  any  other  source  from  which  we  can  certainly 
learn  what  Christ  and  his  apostles  taught,  so  that  information 
upon  this  point,  derived  from  that  source,  shall  be  as  binding  upon 
us  as  what  is  derived  from  the  Bible  ?  And  when  Papists  and 
Tractarians,  in  place  of  fairly  and  candidly  discussing  this  question, 
go  back  and  raise  difficulties  about  a  preliminary  point,  which  at 
this  stage  of  the  argument  ought  to  be  received  and  held  as  settled, 
they  give  good  ground  to  suspect  that  they  are  more  concerned 
about  victory  than  truth,  more  anxious  to  perplex  than  to  convince, 
and  ready  to  undermine  any  truth,  however  important,  if  they 


476 


THIRTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


think  they  can  thereby  involve  an  opponent  in  a  difficulty,  or 
promote  any  of  these  objects.  There  is  really  however  no  diffi¬ 
culty  whatever  in  the  matter.  We  are  quite  ready  to  discuss  with 
Papists  and  Tractarians  any  question  whatever ;  but  we  wish 
each  question  to  be  kept  in  its  right  place,  and  discussed  upon 
its  own  proper  grounds.  We  are  quite  willing  to  discuss  with 
them  the  subject  of  the  divine  origin  and  canonical  authority 
of  the  books  of  Scripture,  and  not  only  to  prove  the  doctrines  we 
hold  upon  those  subjects,  but  also  to  prove  moreover  that,  in  the 
process  of  establishing  them  by  satisfactory  evidence,  we  have  not 
committed  ourselves  to  any  Popish  or  Tractarian  principle  about 
tradition  or  church  authority,  and  that  we  have  not  precluded  our¬ 
selves,  in  reality  or  even  in  appearance,  by  any  position  we  have 
laid  down  in  discussing  this  subject,  from  maintaining  that  these 
books,  previously  proved  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  admitted  on 
both  sides  to  possess  this  character,  are  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  the 
only  source  from  which  we  can  now  derive  authentic  and  infallible 
information  as  to  what  is  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  salvation. 

Indeed,  the  question  as  to  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of  the 
Scripture,  and  its  exclusive  authority  as  the  rule  of  faith,  cannot 
be  fairly  and  intelligibly  stated  without  making  it  manifest  that 
the  question  of  the  divine  origin  and  canonical  authority  of  the 
books  of  Scripture  is  a  preliminary  point,  which  at  this  stage  of 
the  argument  must  be  held  as  established  or  conceded,  and  that 
to  attempt  to  go  back  upon  it  here  is  to  violate  at  once  the 
rules  of  logic  and  of  fairness.  We  do  not  contend  that  every 
proposition  we  hold  concerning  religious  subjects  is  actually 
asserted  or  declared  in  the  Bible  ;  what  we  contend  for  is  this, 
that  having  once  ascertained  and  proved  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God,  we  are  bound  to  believe  upon  its  authority,  and  as 
one  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  it,  as  well  as  upon  grounds  derived 
from  other  considerations,  that  it  contains  the  whole  will  of  God 
revealed  for  our  salvation,  and  that  we  are  to  seek  nowhere  else 
for  any  authentic  information  as  to  what  he  requires  us  to  believe 
and  to  do.  In  reply  to  this,  Papists  and  Tractarians  virtually  say 
to  us.  We  admit  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  all 
its  statements  come  from  him ;  but  w^e  contend  that  there  is 
another  source,  viz.,  tradition,  from  which  equally  authentic 
information  as  to  matters  of  faith  and  practice  may  be  derived  ; 


TRADITION. 


477 


and  if  they  would  honestly  follow  out  this,  the  true  state  of  the 
question,  they  would  see  that  it  was  irrelevant  and  unfair  to  go 
back  now  upon  the  preliminary  point  of  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  that  if  they  undertake  to  produce,  in  dis¬ 
proof  of  our  position  about  the  perfection  and  sufficiency  of  the 

written  word,  and  in  support  of  their  own,  instances  of  doctrines 

* 

not  taught  in  Scripture  but  learned  from  tradition,  they  must  in 
fairness  confine  themselves  to  instances  analogous  in  their  general 
nature  and  character  to  those  of  which  we  assert  the  Bible  to  be 
the  only  rule,  the  exclusive  standard  and  depository ;  viz.,  particular 
points  of  faith  and  practice.  This  instance  then  of  the  divine 
origin  and  canonical  authority  of  the  Scripture  does  not  answer 
the  first  of  the  conditions  which  we  laid  down  as  indispensable. 
It  does  not  belong  to  that  class  of  truths  of  which  we  assert  the 
Bible  to  be  the  only  rule  and  standard,  but  is  from  its  very  nature 
preliminary  or  antecedent. 

There  is  another  class  of  these  alleged  instances  of  faith  and 
practice  brought  forward  by  Papists  and  Tractarians  to  prove  the 
imperfection  and  insufficiency  of  the  Scripture  and  the  necessity 
and  authority  of  tradition,  in  regard  to  which  the  ground  we  take 
is  this  :  They  do  not  answer  the  second  condition  which  we  laid 
down,  i.e.  we  assert  that  they  are  not  true,  or  what  is  quite  suffi¬ 
cient  for  the  purpose  of  the  argument,  that  they  have  never  been 
proved  to  be  true  by  any  competent  evidence  of  any  kind  or  from 
any  source,  and  that  therefore  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  admit 
or  receive  them.  In  regard  to  some  of  them,  we  assert  and  under¬ 
take  to  prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  they  are  false,  that  they 
are  opposed  to  the  word  of  God,  and  that  no  tradition  however 
respectable,  no  Catholic  consent  however  general,  is  sufficient  to 
establish  them,  or  to  impose  upon  us  an  obligation  to  believe 
them ;  while  in  regard  to  one  or  two  points  that  may  come  under 
this  head,  we  say  that  we  have  no  sufficient  materials  for  deciding 
certainly  whether  they  are  true  or  false,  and  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
no  consequence  whatever  whether  they  are  true  or  not.  Baptismal 
regeneration,  a  commemorative  sacrifice  in  the  Eucharist,  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  is  held  by  Tractarians,  an  intermediate  state, 
and  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  threefold  order  of  the  priesthood, 
and  the  government  of  the  Church  by  bishops  or  rather  prelates — 
these  doctrines  we  readily  admit  are  not  taught  in  Scripture.  We 


I 


478  THIRTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 

concede  all  this  to  the  Tractarians ;  but  we  further  contend,  and 
here  we  differ  from  them,  that  not  only  are  they  not  taught  in 
Scripture,  but  that  Scripture  affords  sufficient  materials  for  dis¬ 
proving  them,  and  thereby  imposes  upon  us  an  obligation  to  reject 
them.  Of  course  Protestants,  who  concur  in  holding,  in  opposition 
to  Papists  and  Tractarians,  the  perfection  of  the  written  word  and 
its  exclusive  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith,  differ  among  themselves 
whether  some  of  the  instances  adduced  should  be  ranked  in  this 
class  or  in  another,  viz.,  that  of  those  in  regard  to  which  it  is 
asserted  that  they  are  taught  in  Scripture,  and  that  we  are  not 
dependent  upon  tradition  either  for  the  knowledge  or  the  proof  of 
them.  Mr  Goode,  as  an  honest  Episcopalian,  contends  that  the 
threefold  order  in  the  ministry,  or  as  Papists  and  Tractarians  call 
it,  the  priesthood,  and  the  government  of  the  church  by  prelates, 
are  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  and  are  sufficiently  established  by 
its  statements.  Presbyterians  may  fairly  take  some  advantage  of 
the  concession  of  the  Tractarians,  that  these  points  are  not  estab¬ 
lished  by  scriptural  authority,  and  they  are  not  likely  to  be  much 
impressed  by  the  attempt  which  Mr  Goode  is  obliged  to  make  to 
prove  that  they  are.  It  is  rather  a  singular  spectacle  to  see  Mr 
Goode,  who  cherishes  the  most  kindly  and  Christian  feelings 
towards  non-prelatic  churches,  and  who  repudiates  the  idea  of 
refusing  to  their  pastors  the  title  of  ministers  of  Christ,  engaged  in 
establishing  against  Tractarians  the  scriptural  authority  of  pre¬ 
lacy,  and  at  the  same  time  to  see  Tractarians  refusing  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  as  ministers  of  Christ  men  who  were  ordained,  as  Timothy 
was,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  while  yet 
they  themselves  admit  that  prelacy  cannot  be  established  from 
Scripture,  and  is  dependent  for  its  authority  on  tradition.  There 
is  nothing  thoroughly  consistent  but  truth,  full  and  absolute  truth, 
and  truth  on  the  subject  of  church  government  is  Presbyterianism. 

It  is  certain  however  that  a  considerable  number  of  these 
instances  may  be  conclusively  disposed  of  by  asserting  and  proving 
that  they  are  not  true  and  obligatory  ;  that  whatever  countenance 
they  may  have  from  tradition — and  with  respect  to  some  of  them, 
a  dispute  may  be  raised  even  upon  this  point — they  are  dis¬ 
countenanced  and  opposed  by  the  written  word,  and  therefore  do 
not  fulfil  all  the  conditions  necessary  to  give  them  validity  as 
proofs  of  the  general  position  in  support  of  which  they  are 


TRADITION. 


479 


adduced.  In  regard  to  other  instances,  the  ground  we  take  is 
this,  that  we  have  no  very  certain  means  of  deciding  whether  they 
are  true  or  false,  and  that  it  is  of  little  or  no  consequence  what 
opinion  men  may  entertain  concerning  them.  The  perpetual 
virginity  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  which  is  one  of  the  instances 
adduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians,  and  which  they  contend  for 
as  if  it  were  an  important  article  of  faith,  is  a  specimen  of  this 
class.  Scripture  would  rather  seem  to  indicate  that  after  our 
Lord’s  birth  she  lived  with  Joseph  as  his  wife;  but  as  the  persons 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  our  Lord’s  brethren  might  be  his  kinsmen 
or  cousins,  there  is  perhaps  no  conclusive  disproof  of  the  Popish 
and  Tractarian  view  upon  this  point,  and  except  in  so  far  as  there 
might  be  materials  in  Scripture  for  deciding  it,  no'  man  of  good 
sense  and  right  feeling  would  ever  have  thought  of  adverting  to 
it ;  and  it  is  a  deplorable  exhibition  of  the  general  character  of 
the  religion  that  is  now  so  much  in  vogue,  that  the  Tractarians 
should  have  borrowed  this  topic  from  the  Papists,  and  followed 
their  example  in  not  only  asserting  a  positive  opinion  concerning 
it  as  an  important  article  of  faith,  but  likewise  in  employing  it,  as 
Bellarmine  and  other  Papists  do,  as  an  argument  against  the 
sufficiency  and  perfection  of  the  written  word,  and  in  support  of 
the  necessity  of  pressing  upon  men’s  attention  and  acceptance  all 
the  follies  and  absurdities  of  the  fifth  century.  There  is,  as  has 
been  mentioned,  another  class  of  these  instances  adduced  by 
Papists  and  Tractarians  which  we  proved  to  be  insufficient  to 
establish  the  general  position  and  to  serve  their  purpose,  by  not 
answering  the  third  of  the  conditions  which  are  laid  down  as 
indispensable.  In  regard  to  this  third  class,  we  assert  and  under¬ 
take  to  prove  that  they  are  taught  in  Scripture  with  sufficient 
clearness  and  plainness,  and  that  we  are  not  dependent  upon 
tradition  for  the  knowledge  and  the  proof  of  them.  This  applies 
to  such  points  as  the  non-observance  of  the  seventh,  and  the  sancti¬ 
fication  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  baptism  of  infants,  the 
perpetual  obligation  of  the  Eucharist,  as  well  as  the  doctrines 
generally  received  concerning  the  Trinity  and  the  person  of  Christ. 
In  regard  to  all  these  points,  Papists  and  Tractarians  assert  that 
they  cannot  be  learned  and  proved  from  Scripture,  or  at  least  not 
fully  and  certainly,  but  only  from  tradition.  We  believe  these 
points  as  well  as  they ;  but  we  differ  from  them  in  this,  that  we 


480 


THIRTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


think  they  can  be  proved  from  Scripture,  without  requiring  the 
assistance  of  tradition,  while  we  can  also  shew  that,  in  regard  to 
some  of  them,  the  very  men  on  whose  tradition  our  opponents 
profess  to  receive  them,  thought  they  could  be  proved  from  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  proved  them  accordingly  as  we  do ;  and  in  regard  to 
others  of  them,  that  the  testimony  of  tradition  in  their  favour  is 
at  least  as  obscure  as  the  testimony  of  Scripture  is. 

In  these  various  ways,  all  the  different  instances  of  alleged 
points  of  faith  and  practice  commonly  adduced  by  Papists  and 
Tractarians  to  prove  the  insufficiency  and  imperfection  of  the 
written  word,  and  to  establish  the  necessity  and  authority  of 
unwritten  tradition,  may  be  satisfactorily  disposed  of.  Not  one  of 
them  can  be  of  any  real  avail  in  supporting  their  views,  or  in  dis¬ 
proving  ours,  unless  all  these  positions  can  be  established  regard¬ 
ing  it — first,  that  it  belongs  to  the  class  of  truths  fairly  contem¬ 
plated  in  the  proper  state  of  the  question  under  discussion ; 
second,  that  it  is  true  in  itself,  and  that  it  is  in  some  way  obligatory 
upon  us  to  believe  it;  and  third,  that  it  is  not  taught  in  and 
cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture  without  the  help  of  tradition ;  and 
there  is  not  one  of  them  of  which  all  these  three  positions  can 
be  established.  With  respect  to  the  divine  origin  and  canonical 
authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  it  is  admitted  that  this  is  a 
great  and  fundamental  truth,  and  also  that  it  cannot  be  estab¬ 
lished  merely  from  any  particular  statements  actually  contained 
in  the  Bible,  but  then  it  does  not  belong  to  that  class  of  truths 
fairly  contemplated  in  the  right  statement  of  the  question  in  dis¬ 
pute  ;  and  all  the  rest  may  be  ranked  under  one  or  other  of  two 
classes — either  they  are  not  true,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  so  far 
as  the  argument  is  concerned,  we  are  not  under  any  obligation  to 
admit  and  receive  them,  or  they  are  contained  in  Scripture,  and 
may  be  ascertained  and  established  from  an  examinatian  of  its 
statements. 

This  topic  furnishes  perhaps  the  most  plausible  argument  which 
has  yet  been  devised  by  the  haters  of  God's  word  against  its  suffi¬ 
ciency  and  perfection  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
in  support  of  the  necessity  and  authority  of  unwritten  tradition ; 
and  yet  you  see  how  easily  it  is  answered,  and  how  entirely  desti¬ 
tute  it  is  of  all  real  strength  and  solidity. 


LECTURE  XXXIX. 


TRADITION :  POSITIVE  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  IT. 

T^E  have  shewn  you  that  the  sacred  Scripture  plainly  enough 
'  »  assures  us  of  its  own  sufficiency  and  perfection,  that  is,  it 
assures  us  that  it  contains  everything  which  God  requires  of  us  to 
believe  and  to  do  in  order  to  our  salvation ;  and  that  of  course  we 
need  not  seek  anywhere  else  for  his  revealed  will,  and  are  under 
no  obligation  to  receive  as  coming  from  him,  and  binding  upon  our 
consciences  by  his  authority,  anything  which  is  not  deduced  from 
and  sanctioned  by  his  written  word.  We  have  shewn  you  also, 
that  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  Scripture  which  tends  to  throw 
the  slightest  doubt  upon  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  or  to  require 
any  modification  of  it,  and  more  especially  nothing  which  gives  any 
countenance  to  the  idea  that  the  will  of  God  was  to  be  learned 
from  traditions  of  what  was  orally  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
We  have  also  proved  the  utter  futility  of  the  attempt  made  by 
Papists  and  Tractarians  to  disprove  the  sufficiency  and  perfection 
of  the  written  word  by  an  appeal  to  matters  of  fact,  i.Q.  by  pro¬ 
ducing  instances  of  doctrines  which  are  generally  received  as  coming 
from  God,  but  which  are  alleged  to  be  learned  and  proved  not  from 
Scripture  but  tradition,  by  shewing  you  that  the  doctrines  adduced 
as  instances  either  are  not  true  and  obligatory,  or  else  are  contained 
in  and  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  This  is  quite  sufficient  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  great  Protestant  doctrine  of  our  Confession,  and  we  have 
already  explained  it  in  opposition  to  Papists  and  Tractarians,  viz,, 
that  “the  whole  counsel  of  God  concerning  his  own  glory,  man’s 
salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture, 
or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture.”  The  Confession  adds,  “  Unto  which  nothing  is  at  any 


482 


THIRTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


time  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit  or 
by  traditions  of  men.’"’  We  have  warnings  given  us  in  Scripture 
against  new  revelations  coming  from  any  but  the  apostles  and  their 
associates,  even  though  they  should  seem  to  be  very  plausibly 
supported.  We  have  plain  intimations  that  no  further  public 
general  revelation  of  God’s  will  is  to  be  made  to  the  church  during 
the  dispensation  in  which  our  lot  has  been  cast.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  dwell  upon  the  proof  of  this.  We  would  merely  remark  that 
the  church  has  been  frequently  disturbed  by  pretensions  to  new 
revelations  of  the  Spirit,  from  Montanism  in  the  second  century 
down  to  those  claims  to  miraculous  gifts  which  have  been  put  forth 
in  our  own  age  and  country,  and  that  these  pretensions,  after 
deluding  a  few  respectable  persons  of  peculiar  mental  constitution 
and  temperament,  and  a  considerable  number  of  others  who  had 
no  claims  to  respect,  have  died  away  and  been  forgotten,  while  the 
word  of  the  Lord  endureth  for  ever.  The  traditions  of  men,  how¬ 
ever,  have  proved  a  much  more  formidable  and  permanent  rival  to 
the  written  word  than  pretended  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit. 
They  early  began  to  exert  an  injurious  influence  upon  the  church. 
They  have  been  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  is  pledged 
by  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  to  receive  and  venerate  them 
with  equal  piety  and  reverence  as  the  sacred  Scripture,  and  which 
has  employed  them  among  the  principal  means  of  diffusing  her 
doctrines  and  accomplishing  her  purposes ;  and  they  are  made  the 
sole  foundation  on  which  the  Tractarian  system  rests. 

The  traditions  which  the  Church  of  Rome  receives  and  venerates 
with  equal  piety  and  reverence  as  the  sacred  Scriptures,  are  described 
in  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  as  points  both  of  faith  and 
practice,  which  were  orally  delivered  by  Christ  to  the  apostles,  or 
which  were  orally  delivered  by  the  apostles  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit,  and  which,  though  not  recorded  in  Scripture,  have  been 
preserved  by  continual  succession  in  the  Catholic  Church,  or  as  it 
is  commonly  expressed,  have  been  handed  down  by  oral  tradition. 
Now,  this  doctrine  implies  that  it  is  only  points  which  really  were 
spoken  by  Christ,  or  were  delivered  by  the  apostles,  as  matter  of 
public  instruction  to  the  churches,  and  which  are  in  some  compe¬ 
tent  way  proved  to  possess  this  character,  to  have  originated  in 
this  source,  that  we  are  under  any  obligation  to  receive  as  divine 
and  apostolical  traditions.  The  evidence  usually  offered  of  the 


TRADITION, 


483 


claim  of  particular  doctrines,  either  as  to  matters  of  belief  or 
practice,  to  be  received  as  divine  and  apostolical  traditions,  is,  that 
though  not  recorded  in  Scripture,  they  were  generally  believed  by 
the  early  church  and  are  contained  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  ; 
and  the  more  moderate  defenders  of  Popery  have  admitted  that  it 
is  only  when  this  allegation  of  general  reception  by  the  early 
church  can  be  proved  by  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  that  the 
particular  traditions  are  obligatory.  Some  Papists  however,  feeling 
the  difficulty  of  defending  many  of  their  alleged  traditionary  doc¬ 
trines  by  an  appeal  to  the  early  church  and  the  consent  of  the 
Fathers,  have  claimed  a  larger  scope  for  the  authority  of  the  church 
in  this  matter,  and  have  gone  the  length  of  almost  openly  claiming 
for  the  church,  i.e.  the  present  or  existing  church,  an  absolute  right 
of  declaring  authoritatively  at  any  time  what  are  the  oral  tradi¬ 
tions  which  have  come  down  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  without 
being  under  the  necessity  of  making  out  the  chain  of  connection 
by  proving  their  general  reception  in  the  church  from  early  times ; 
and  it  has  certainly  been  in  the  exercise  of  such  an  arbitrary  and 
unlimited  authority  that  the  actual  standard  of  Popish  faith  and 
practice  has  been  formed,  for  it  contains  many  articles  of  which  it 
can  be  proved  not  only  that  no  evidence  exists  that  they  were 
generally  received  by  the  early  church,  but  that  they  were  opposed 
to  the  views  which  then  generally  prevailed. 

The  Church  of  Eorne  indeed  has  not  explicitly  tied  herself 
down,  in  declaring  and  imposing  apostolical  traditions,  to  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  Fathers,  as  she  has  done  in  regard  to  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Scripture.  But  still  most  of  her  defenders,  in  discussing 
the  principles  of  this  subject,  have  admitted  that,  in  proposing 
and  imposing  anything  as  an  apostolical  tradition,  she  is  called 
upon  to  produce  some  evidence  that  it  was  generally  received  in 
the  early  church,  and  is  therefore,  as  they  agree,  to  be  regarded 
as  having  proceeded  from  the  apostles.  Unwritten  traditions, 
then,  on  this  view,  though  npt  recorded  in  Scripture,  are  said  to 
be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  to  be  thus  proved  to 
have  come  down  from  apostolical  times.  Bellarmine  expressly 
concedes  this.  He  says :  “  Yocatur  autem  doctrina  non  scripta, 
non  ea  quse  nusquam  scripta  est,  sed  quae  non  est  scripta  a  primo 
auctore,  exemplo  est  baptismus  parvulorum.  Parvulos  baptizandos 
esse  vocatur  traditio  apostolica  non  scripta,  quia  non  invenitur  hoc 


^84 


THIRTY^NINTH  LECTURE. 


scriptum  in  ullo  apostolico  libro,  tametsi  scriptum  est  in  libris 
fere  omnium  veterum  Patrum.”  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  the  Tractarians  upon  the  subject  of  tradition  is 
precisely  that  of  the  Papists — that  is,  they  agree  with  them  in  all 
their  general  principles  as  to  the  nature,  authority,  and  validity 
of  tradition  as  a  divine  informant,  to  use  a  favourite  Tractarian 
phrase,  or  as  an  authorised  and  certain  mode  or  channel  of  conveying 
to  us  the  divine  will ;  and  they  differ  with  them  only  as  to  the 
matter  of  fact,  viz.,  whether  all  the  traditions  which  are  held  and 
imposed  by  the  Church  of  Pome  are  accompanied  with  sufficient 
evidence  that  they  did  come  from  the  apostles,  and  are  therefore 
to  be  received  as  a  part  of  the  divine  rule  of  faith.  This  is 
expressly  admitted  in  the  Tracts  for  the  Times,  in  one  written  by 
Dr  Pusey,  in  a  passage  which  is  perhaps  wmrth  quoting,  because  of 
its  boldness  and  plain  speaking.  He  says  :  The  controversy  with 
Pome  is  not  on  an  a  ^priori  question  on  the  value  of  tradition  in 
itself,  or  at  an  earlier  period  of  the  church,  or  of  such  traditions 
as  though  not  contained  in  Scripture,  are  primitive,  universal,  and 
apostolical,  hut  it  is  one  ^purely  historical ;  that  the  Pomanist  tradi¬ 
tions  not  being  such,  but  on  the  contrary  repugnant  to  Scripture,  are 
not  to  be  received.^”  That  is,  they  entirely  agree  with  the  Papists  in 
their  whole  general  doctrine  upon  this  subject,  and  differ  merely  in 
some  of  the  details  of  its  application.  W e  have  seen  that  they  receive 
many  things  not  contained  in  Scripture  as  binding  by  divine  authority 
upon  the  alleged  ground  of  tradition,  and  these  are  all  points  which 
are  held  by  the  Church  of  Pome,  and  rejected  by  almost  all  Protest¬ 
ants.  But  they  think  that,  as  a  matter  of  history,  there  were 
some  of  the  Popish  traditions  which  were  not  sufficiently  proved 
to  have  proceeded  from  the  apostles,  and  some  which  were  opposed 
to  Scripture,  and  were  therefore  to  be  rejected.  The  doctrine  of 
the  word  of  God  and  of  our  Confession  is,  that  nothing  is  at  any 
time  to  be  added  to  the  written  word  by  traditions,  which  the 
Confession  calls  “  traditions  of  men,’^  because  there  are  none 
which  can  be  shewn  to  possess  any  higher  than  human  origin. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Pome  and  the  Tractarians  upon 
the  subject  is  directly  the  reverse  of  this,  viz.,  that  there  are  addi¬ 
tions  infallibly  true  and  imperatively  binding  made  to  the  written 
word  by  unwritten  tradition. 

^  De  Verho  Del,  lib.  iv.  chap.  ii.  p.  GG. 


“  Goode,  vol.  i.  p.  38. 


TRADITION. 


485 


The  doctrine  of  the  Papists  and  Tractarians  upon  this  subject 
may  be  regarded  as  involving  these  three  propositions — first,  that 
tradition  is  a  divinely  authorised  channel  or  provision  for  convey¬ 
ing  to  us  the  will  of  God,  as  well  as  the  written  word ;  second, 
that  tradition  is  fitted  to  convey  to  us  the  oral  teaching  of  the 
apostles  purely  and  certainly,  as  purely  and  certainly  as  if  it  had 
been  embodied  by  themselves  in  a  written  record ;  and  third,  that 
in  point  of  fact,  we  have  traditions  of  matters  of  faith  and  practice 
which  are  not  recorded  in  Scripture,  but  which  yet  can  be  traced, 
by  satisfactory  evidence,  to  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles.  The 
first  and  third  of  these  propositions  have  already  been  refuted 
when  we  were  establishing  directly  the  sufficiency  and  perfection 
of  the  written  word,  and  answering  the  objections  which  have 
been  adduced  against  it;  and  the  second,  as  to  the  fitness  of 
tradition  to  convey  purely  and  certainly  the  oral  teaching  of  the 
apostles  is  so  flatly  contradictory  to  common  sense,  to  universal 
experience,  and  the  whole  history  of  the  world  and  the  church, 
that  it  is  scarcely  deserving  of  an  answer.  We  shall  not  now, 
therefore,  attempt  any  regular  discussion  of  this  subject,  but  only 
make  a  few  additional  miscellaneous  observations  regarding:  it. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  to  shew  that  the  Scripture  authorises 
tradition,  and  virtually  refers  us  to  that  source  as  a  means  of 
certainly  knowing  the  divine  will,  an  attempt  based  upon  these 
passages  in  which  the  Apostle  Paul  requires  the  churches  to 
adhere  to  the  traditions  which  they  had  received  from  him.  The 
irrelevancy  of  these  passages  to  the  purpose  for  which  they  are 
adduced,  and  the  futility  of  the  argument  founded  upon  them,  have 
been  alread}^  sufficiently  exposed.  But  not  only  does  Scripture  give 
no  countenance  or  authority  to  tradition  as  a  recognised  means  of 
conveying  to  us  the  divine  will,  and  not  only  does  it  virtually 
exclude  tradition  as  a  divine  informant  by  plainly  enough  asserting 
its  own  sufficiency  and  perfection,  but  it  also  contains  much  that 
goes  directly  to  disprove  the  authority  and  validity  of  tradition. 
The  Pharisaic  doctrine  of  tradition  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Papists  and  Tractarians,  and  the  use  made  of  it  by  the  Pharisees 
was  precisely  analogous  to  that  made  of  it  by  their  successors  in 
the  work  of  corrupting  true  religion,  so  that  tradition  is  an  old 
device  of  Satan  ;  it  met,  as  exhibited  in  the  case  of  the  Pharisees, 
with  the  most  decided  and  emphatic  condemnation  from  our 


486 


THIRTY-NINTH  LECTURE, 


Saviour,  who  not  only  himself  refused  to  pay  the  smallest  regard 
or  respect  to  their  traditions  ;  in  this  as  in  everything  else  leaving 
us  an  example  that  we  should  follow  his  steps,  but  declared  that 
they  made  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  by  their  traditions — a 
declaration  just  as  applicable  to  the  conduct  of  Papists  and  Trac- 
tarians  as  to  that  of  those  against  whom  it  was  originally  directed. 
When  our  Lord  had  so  emphatically  denounced  this  principle,  and 
the  use  made  of  it,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  Satan  would 
scarcely  have  ventured  to  have  again  employed  the  same  device 
for  making  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  among  men  who 
professed  to  honour  Christ,  and  to  submit  to  his  authority.  But 
the  event  has  justified  his  wisdom  and  his  knowledge  of  human 
nature.  He  has  again  succeeded,  notwithstanding  our  Saviour  s 
warnings  and  denunciations,  in  making  the  word  of  God  of  none 
effect  by  tradition,  in  grievously  corrupting  the  true  religion  by 
means  of  the  devices  and  inventions  of  men.  We  cannot  recog¬ 
nise  tradition  as  an  authorised  method  of  conveying  to  us  the 
divine  will,  unless  we  have  God’s  own  authority  for  regarding  and 
trusting  it  as  such.  But  God  in  his  word  has  not  only  given  it  no 
such  authority,  but  has,  both  by  general  principles  and  by  specific 
statements,  forbidden  us  to  take  it  as  our  rule  or  guide. 

The  alleged  fitness  of  tradition  to  convey  to  us  purely  and 
certainly  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles,  depends  upon  such 
positions  as  these — first,  that  the  church  of  the  apostolic  age 
would  purely  and  accurately  convey  to  the  church  of  the  next 
generation  many  things  which  the  apostles  had  orally  taught,  and 
that  generation  to  the  next,  and  so  on ;  second,  that  we  have  such 
records  and  evidences  of  what  was  generally  held  and  received 
by  the  church  in  each  succeeding  generation  as  to  be  provided 
with  sufficient  materials  for  ascertaining  in  this  way  what  had 
been  handed  down  from  the  apostles ;  third,  that  no  changes  of 
doctrine  or  practice  could  have  been  introduced  into  the  church  in 
any  age  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  without  attracting  attention, 
giving  rise  to  discussion,  and  thus  becoming  historically  known  to 
us  as  changes  or  novelties.  Such  notions  are  plainly  inconsistent 
with  universal  experience,  with  the  history  of  opinion  'in  almost 
every  country,  and  in  regard  to  all  subjects,  and  are  flatly  contra¬ 
dicted  by  palpable  and  notorious  facts  in  the  history  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  church.  And  yet  some  of  the  bolder  defenders  of  Popery  do 


TRADITION. 


487 


not  scruple  to  maintain,  and  the  mass  of  Papists  believe,  that  all 
the  present  tenets  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  regard  to  matters  of 
faith  and  practice  have  been  handed  down  in  uninterrupted  suc¬ 
cession  from  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles  ;  and  they  generally 
insist  that,  whenever  we  allege  that  any  of  the  tenets  and  prac¬ 
tices  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  not  warrantable  and  obligatory, 
we  shall  produce  positive  historical  evidence  as  to  when  and  where 
and  how  they  originated.  We  deny  our  obligation  to  undertake 
any  such  burden  of  proof.  We  are  warned  in  Scripture  not  only 
that  heresies  would  spring  up  in  the  church,  but  that  they  would 
be  brought  in  privily.  Our  Saviour  has  recognised  it  as  a  legiti¬ 
mate  argument,  “  that  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.’'  The 
Apostle  Paul  sometimes  founds  an  argument,  as,  for  example,  in 
more  than  one  instance  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  upon  the  mere  silence  of  Scripture  ;  and  therefore  we 
regard  it  as  quite  sufficient  ground  for  rejecting  any  of  the  tenets 
or  practices  of  Popery  to  shew  that  they  are  not  sanctioned  or 
authorised  by  the  written  word.  But  Protestant  writers  have  in 
many  instances  given  an  authentic  history  of  the  rise,  growth,  and 
progress  of  Popish  errors  and  corruptions,  and  in  a  still  greater 
number  of  instances  have  produced  conclusive  proof  from  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  that  at  a  certain  era  in  the  history  of 
the  church  those  tenets  were  not  generally  held  and  received,  and 
have  thus  completely  cut  off  all  connection  between  them  and 
the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles.  The  history  of  the  church 
abundantly  proves,  that  immediately  after  the  apostolic  age,  a 
variety  of  new  tenets  and  practices  sprang  up  in  different  parts 
of  the  church  ;  that  these  errors  and  corruptions  increased  and 
extended  both  in  number  and  degree,  until  in  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century  they  attained  the  form  and  aspect  in  which  they 
are  now  pressed  upon  us  by  Tractarians  as  the  full  and  genuine 
model  of  the  apostolic  church,  and  in  another  century  or  two 
became  mature  and  full-blown  Popery.  We  have  few  written 
records  to  enable  us  to  know  with  anything  like  fulness  and 
certainty  what  were  the  views  and  practices  which  prevailed  in 
the  church  at  large  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the 
apostles ;  but  we  have  enough  to  afford  us  materials  for  proving 
that  many  things  held  by  the  Fathers  of  the  fifth  century  were 
not  then  known  and  believed,  and  there  are  many  things  embodied 


488 


THIRTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


in  the  history  of  the  preceding  period  which  demonstrate  the  folly 
of  regarding  the  general  maintenance  of  a  notion,  or  the  general 
adoption  of  a  practice,  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  as  of  itself  a 
proof  that  it  proceeded  from  the  apostles,  and  was  handed  down 
purely  and  accurately  from  generation  to  generation. 

There  is  one  instance  of  this  which  seems  to  have  been  provi¬ 
dentially  arranged,  and  intended  by  God  for  the  express  purpose 
of  holding  out  to  all  succeeding  generations  a  palpable  and  con¬ 
clusive  proof  of  the  folly  of  placing  any  reliance  upon  alleged 
tradition,  as  a  certain  and  authentic  mode  of  conveying  the  mind 
and  teaching  of  the  apostles ;  and  though  it  is  very  well  known, 
it  may  not  be  improper  to  advert  to  it.  I  allude  to  the  keen 
contention  which  arose  near  the  end  of  the  second  century  between 
the  Eastern  and  the  Western  Churches  as  to  the  day  on  which 
Easter  was  to  be  kept,  both  parties  claiming  for  their  opposite 
practices  the  authority  and  example  of  apostles.  The  question 
was  this,  whether  Easter,  i.e.  the  anniversary  commemoration  of 
the  day  of  our  Lord’s  resurrection,  should  be  kept  on  the  same 
day  of  the  month  or  on  the  same  day  of  the  week  on  which  the 
event  itself  took  place  ;  in  other  words,  whether  it  should  be  kept 
upon  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  whatever  day  of  the  week 
that  might  be,  or  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  whatever  day  of 
the  month  that  might  be.  The  Eastern  Churches  observed  it 
upon  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  and  pleaded  for  this 
practice  the  authority  and  example  of  the  Apostle  John.  The 
Church  of  Lome  and  the  Western  Churches  observed  it  upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  pleaded  for  this  the  authority  and 
practice  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  whose  names  the  Popes 
have  so  often  in  their  Bulls  prostituted,  and  continue  to  this 
day  to  prostitute,  to  the  most  nefarious  purposes.  Both  parties 
adhered  to  their  respective  practices  based  upon  such  respectable 
authority,  and  the  matter  terminated  for  the  time  by  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  excommunicating  all  the  Eastern  Churches  as  guilty, 
notwithstanding  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  John,  of  holding 
what  was  called  the  Quartodeciman  heresy,  or  the  heresy  of 
keeping  Easter  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  the  truth 
all  the  while  being,  as  we  are  firmly  persuaded,  that  John  and 
Peter  and  Paul  did  not  keep  Easter  on  any  day,  any  more  than 
we  do.  In  Acts  xii.  4,  Easter  means  the  Jewish  Passover.  All  this 


TRADITION. 


489 


took  place  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  the  important 
fact  remains  a  standing  memorial,  and  an  impressive  warning  to 
the  church,  to  place  no  implicit  reliance  upon  any  alleged  apostolic 
traditions  except  those  which  the  apostles  themselves  have  com¬ 
mitted  to  written  record.  The  Tractarians  have  selected  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  the  early  part  of  the  hfth  century, 
a  period  of  about  one  hundred  years  after  the  Council  of  Nice, 
as  that  in  which  the  church  exhibited  most  fully  in  doctrine  and 
practice  the  whole  of  what  had  come  down  by  tradition  from  the 
apostles.  The  church  of  that  period,  they  hold  that  the  church  of 
every  subsequent  age  is  bound  to  copy.  How  far  the  church  of 
that  period  is  in  fact  from  being  worthy  of  imitation,  if  the  Bible 
be  indeed  the  word  of  God,  has  been  most  conclusively  and  impres¬ 
sively  shewn  in  Mr  Taylor’s  very  valuable  work,  entitled  Ancient 
Christianity.  But  at  present  we  have  to  do  only  with  those 
general  principles  on  which  our  alleged  obligation  to  take  it  as 
our  model  in  all  things  is  founded.  They  maintain  that  the 
doctrines  generally  held,  and  the  practices  generally  adopted,  by 
the  church  of  that  period,  had  come  down  from  the  apostles,  and 
were  derived  from  their  oral  teaching ;  that  they  had  existed  in 
the  church  during  the  whole  intervening  period,  but  that,  from 
the  comparative  fewness  of  the  writers  of  preceding  periods,  and 
the  particular  character  and  objects  of  those  of  their  writings 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  we  have  not  till  we  come  down  to 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  sufficient  materials  for  ascer¬ 
taining  fully  what  the  apostles  taught  the  churches,  and  what  had 
been  handed  down  from  them  in  the  church  by  oral  tradition. 

This  great  general  principle  has  a  plausible  sound.  It  is  usually 
put  forth  in  some  such  form  as  this,  that  what  has  always  been 
held  by  the  whole  church,  from  the  apostles’  times  downwards, 
must  have  come  from  the  apostles  themselves ;  or  what  is  commonly 
indicated  by  the  well-known  words,  quod  semper,  quod  ubique, 
quod  ab  omnibus.”  Now,  independently  of  the  objections  that 
might  be  conclusively  urged  against  this  as  a  general  position  from 
the  actual  history  of  the  church,  when  it  is  adduced  as  the  basis 
of  anything  more  than  a  probability,  it  has  been  alleged  and 
proved  that  there  is  no  one  matter  of  faith  or  practice  not 
sanctioned  by  Scripture  to  which  the  general  rule,  even  after 
making  considerable  deductions  from  its  universality,  does  in  point 


490 


THIRTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


of  fact  apply.  And  accordingly  we  find  that  both  Papists  and  Trac- 
tarians,  while  they  talk  much  about  consentient  patristical  tradi¬ 
tion  and  Catholic  consent,  and  the  faith  of  the  universal  church, 
frequently  attempt  to  put  us  off  with  a  very  meagre  and  scanty 
measure  of  evidence,  even  from  the  Fathers,  for  the  traditions 
which  they  require  us  to  receive  as  apostolical,  the  Fathers  often 
contradicting  themselves  and  differing  from  each  other,  and  afford¬ 
ing  very  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory  intimations  of  what  was 
believed  and  practised  in  the  church  at  large.  Indeed,  almost  the 
only  tradition  to  which  the  rule  “  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod 
ab  omnibus”  really  applies,  the  only  point  connected  with  or 
involved  in  these  controversies  on  which  the  Fathers  were  unani¬ 
mous,  or  nearly  so,  was  just  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of  the 
written  word  as  the  only  divine  rule  of  faith,  and  the  right  and 
duty  of  all  men  to  read  and  study  it  for  their  own  guidance. 
The  Fathers  do  indeed  sometimes  refer  to  oral  traditions  for 
certain  purposes,  but  never  to  the  exclusion  or  disparagement  of 
the  written  word.  And  it  has  been  proved  conclusively  that  most 
of  the  passages  in  which  the  Fathers  speak  of  tradition,  the 
evangelical  tradition  as  they  often  call  it,  and  which  are  commonly 
adduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians  as  testimony  in  favour  of 
unwritten  tradition,  do  really  in  the  intention  of  the  Fathers  apply 
to  the  written  word.  All  this  has  been  often  established  by  the 
leading  writers  in  opposition  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  it  has 
been  fully  established  by  Mr  Goode  in  opposition  to  the  Trac- 
tarians.^  When  Papists  and  Tractarians  are  thus  met  upon 
their  own  grounds  and  discomfited  by  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers, 
they  commonly  have  recourse  for  shelter  and  defence  in  their 
extremity  to  what  is  called  disciplina  arcani,  or  an  alleged 
practice  of  the  Fathers  to  conceal  their  real  views.  If  this 
practice  did  generally  obtain  among  them,  it  would  certainly 
very  materially  affect  the  practicability  of  ascertaining  from  them 
Avhat  had  been  handed  down  from  apostolic  times  on  particular 
points  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  moreover,  it  would  certainly 
not  account  for  the  explicit  declarations  many  of  them  have 
given  in  opposition  to  Papist  and  Tractarian  views  upon  the 
subject  of  the  rule  of  faith. 

The  principal  answer  which  the  Tractarians  have  given  to  Mr 

Goode,  vol,  i.  p,  23. 


D I  SCI P  LIN  A  ARC  AN  I 


491 


Goodes  conclusive  proof  that  the  Fathers  generally  did  not  hold 
their  views  in  regard  to  the  rule  of  faith,  but  asserted  the 
sufficiency  and  perfection  of  the  written  word  in  opposition  to 
unwritten  tradition,  is  just  this,  that  he  did  not  take  into  account 
the  disciplina  arcani,  or  their  practice  of  concealing  their  real 
opinions.  The  use  made  of  the  disciplina  arcani  by  Tractarians 
in  discussing  the  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  is  precisely  the  same 
as  that  made  of  it  by  the  Papists,  and  indeed  is  manifestly  borrowed 
from  them.  It  is  thus  ridiculed  by  an  old  English  writer^  : — 

If  you  inquire  why  we  read  nothing  of  transubstantiation  in  ancient 
authors,  the  answer  is  very  easy  and  ready.  Pisciplina  arcani.  Why  the 
Fathers  did  not  assert  the  worship  of  images.  DucipUna  arcani.  Why  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  clearly  taught  before  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Disciplina  arcani.  Why  we  have  no  accounts  of  the  seven  sacraments  before 
the  seventh  century.  Disciplina  arcani.  Why  the  writings  of  St  Denys 
{Dionysius,  the  areopagite)  lay  so  long  concealed.  Disciplina  arcani.  And  so 
for  every  novelty  else  disciplina  arcani  still  returns  upon  you;  and  it  is  so 
great  a  charm  that  some  would  be  almost  afraid  of  it,  for  it  has  a  strange 
faculty  of  making  anything  look  aged  that  it  can  but  come  near.  This 
disciplina  arcani  is  an  occult  quality  to  solve  all  difficulties  by;  and  say  what 
you  will,  those  two  emphatical  words  shall  bear  down  all  before  them.” 

There  is  not  any  one  point  of  faith  or  practice  not  sanctioned  and 
authorised  by  Scripture  in  regard  to  which  Papists  or  Tractarians 
have  ever  been  able  to  produce  anything  like  sufficient  or  satis¬ 
factory  evidence  that  it  really  proceeded  from  the  apostles,  and 
has  been  accurately  handed  down  by  oral  tradition,  and  this 
consideration  of  itself,  were  there  no  other,  is  quite  sufficient  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  that  nothing  is  to  be  added 
to  the  written  word  by  traditions  of  men,  that  there  is  no  other 
source  from  which  we  can  certainly  learn  anything  which  was 
delivered  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  as  matter  of  public  instruction 
to  the  churches,  and  which  therefore  we  are  under  an  obligation 
to  believe  and  to  practise.  [Dallaeus,  Be  usn  Patruw.^] 

^  Peek’s  Rule  of  FaUh,  pp.  232,  233,  giving  extract  from  Comber’s  Roman 
Forgeries  in  Councils. 

Newman  on  Development  was  published  since  this  was  written. 


LECTURE  XL. 


LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  SUFFICIENCY  OF  SCEIPTUEE  STATED 
IN  CONFESSION— PEESPICUITY  OF  SCEIPTUEE. 

There  are  two  additions  made  in  the  sixth  section  of  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Confession  to  the  assertion  of  the  sufficiency  and 
perfection  of  the  written  word  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  to  which 
it  is  proper  briefly  to  advert.  They  are  thus  expressed :  “Neverthe¬ 
less  we  acknowledge  the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
to  be  necessary  for  the  saving  understanding  of  such  things  as  are 
revealed  in  the  word,  and  that  there  are  some  circumstances  con¬ 
cerning  the  worship  of  God  and  government  of  the  church,  common 
to  human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light 
of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of 
the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed.”  These  two  portions  are 
now  evidently  introduced  in  such  a  way  as  implies  that  they  are  of 
some  importance  for  guarding  against  misconstruction,  and  pointing 
out  in  what  sense  the  great  truth  about  the  perfection  of  the  written 
word  is  to  be  understood.  First,  The  assertion  of  the  perfection  of 
the  written  word  is  not  to  be  understood  as  implying  any  doubt  or 
denial  of  the  necessity  of  the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  for  savingly  understanding  what  is  revealed  in  the  word.  The 
necessity  of  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit  for  understanding  the 
word  is  a  great  scriptural  truth  of  vital  and  fundamental  import¬ 
ance,  and  never  to  be  forgotten  or  overlooked  in  any  inquiry  as  to 
how  we  are  to  know  the  mind  and  will  of  God.  We  shall  have 
occasion  to  consider  it  more  fully  under  the  head  of  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  Scripture,  and  in  the  meantime  will  make  a  remark  or  two 
upon  the  second  point  here  introduced,  though  it  is  of  vastly 
inferior  importance,  as  we  will  not  have  any  other  occasion  to 


LIGHT  OF  NATURE  AND  CHRISTIAN  PRUDENCE.  493 


advert  to  it.  Although  the  Scripture  is  the  only  rule  of  faith, 
yet  it  is  also  true,  as  the  Confession  says,  that  “  there  are  some 
circumstances  concerning  the  worship  of  God  and  government  of 
the  church,  common  to  human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to 
be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be 
observed.”  Presbyterians  have  always  held  that  in  the  principle 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of  faith,  there  is  involved  this 
position,  that  nothing  ought  to  be  introduced  into  the  worship 
and  government  of  the  Christian  Church,  except  what  is  sanctioned 
by  the  word  of  God.  Papists  and  prelatists,  and  most  Lutherans, 
have  contended  that  the  church  hath  authority  to  decree  rites  and 
ceremonies,  a  principle  which  Presbyterians  have  always  decidedly 
rejected.  In  establishing  this  principle,  its  supporters  have  made 
great  use  of  the  precept  of  the  apostle,  ‘‘  Let  all  things  be  done 
decently,  and  in  order.’'  They  have  made  it  a  warrant,  though  it 
is  a  very  inadequate  one,  for  introducing  many  inventions  of  men 
into  the  worship  of  God  and  the  government  of  the  church,  as  if 
necessary  for  accomplishing  these  objects.  Presbyterians  regard 
it  as  warranting  the  principle  just  quoted  from  the  Confession,  but 
nothing  more,  viz.,  that  some  circumstances  connected  with  the 
worship  and  government  of  the  church,  which  are  of  a  kind  com¬ 
mon  to  human  actions  and  societies,  and  which  it  is  necessary  to 
regulate  in  order  to  promote  decency,  good  order,  and  general  com¬ 
fort  and  convenience,  may  be  regulated  and  arranged  by  the  church 
according  to  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence.  This  is 
obviously  necessary  and  reasonable,  and  is  sanctioned  by  the  word 
of  God  itself. 

But  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  between  this  reasonable 
and  necessary  principle  of  regulating,  so  far  as  may  be  necessary 
for  securing  decency  and  order,  some  circumstances  in  the  mode 
of  doing  those  things  which  God  has  authorised  and  required  to 
be  done,  and  the  arbitrary  introduction  into  the  worship  and 
government  of  the  church  of  new  and  distinct  things  unsanctioned 
by  Scripture,  because  men  in  their  vffsdom  imagine,  or  profess  to 
imagine,  that  they  are  fitted  to  promote  decency  and  good  order. 
The  circumstances  referred  to  in  the  Confession,  judging  from  the 
principles  that  have  been  usually  held  by  Presbyterians  upon  this 
subject,  are  such  as  these  provisions  and  arrangements  concerning 


494 


FORTIETH  LECTURE, 


the  external  conveniences  for  and  the  necessary  accompaniments 
of  the  worship  of  God  and  the  government  of  the  church  ;  the 
time,  place,  and  manner  of  meeting  for  the  administration  of  the 
public  worship  of  God ;  the  most  convenient  way  of  administering 
public  ordinances  so  as  to  promote  general  comfort  and  decency, 
without  pretending  to  introduce  new  things  professedly  for  the 
purpose  of  making  them  more  solemn  and  impressive,  or  pre¬ 
suming  to  omit  anything  which  God’s  word  sanctions  or  enjoins. 
For  instance,  the  word  of  God  gives  a  clear  sanction  to  our  pray¬ 
ing  ordinarily,  both  in  a  kneeling  and  in  a  standing  posture.  As 
both  these  are  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  and  as  it  is  desirable  that 
there  should  be  uniformity  in  the  matter,  the  church  is  warranted 
to  decide  whether  it  is,  upon  the  whole,  better  that  congregations 
should  pray  standing  or  kneeling.  But  as  the  example  of  our 
Saviour  plainly  indicates  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  should  be  received 
in  the  ordinary  posture  commonly  used  at  meals,  the  church  has 
no  right  to  require  that  it  shall  be  received  kneeling,  upon  the 
ground  of  manifesting  thereby  greater  reverence.  Singing  of 
psalms  is  authorised  in  Scripture  as  a  part  of  the  public  worship 
of  God,  and  therefore  some  circumstances  connected  wdth  the 
singing  of  psalms  which  it  may  be  necessary,  from  a  regard  to 
decency  and  order,  to  regulate,  may  be  regulated  by  the  church  ; 
but  this  affords  no  warrant  for  introducing  an  entirely  distinct  or 
different  thing,  in  order,  it  is  said,  to  heighten  the  devotion  by 
instrumental  music.  It  may  be  contended,  indeed,  that  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  instrumental  music  is  merely  a  regulation  of  the  mode 
of  performing  the  unquestionable  duty  of  singing  psalms.  This 
seems  to  be  rather  a  lax  use  of  words ;  and  besides,  experience 
seems  to  shew  that  the  introduction  of  this  invention  of  man, 
in  place  of  aiding  or  assisting,  has  a  powerful  tendency  to  exclude 
or  to  put  an  end  to  the  practice  of  singing  psalms  by  the  congre¬ 
gation,  which  God  has  unquestionably  sanctioned  and  required. 
These  things  are  mentioned  merely  as  natural  and  obvious  illus¬ 
trations  of  that  part  of  the  Confession  which  has  come  under  our 
notice,  and  while  they  tend  to  explain  the  general  principle  there 
laid  down,  they  also  shew  that  Presbyterians,  while  repudiating 
the  principle  which  has  been  so  much  abused  by  Papists,  and 
even  by  prelatists,  of  the  authority  of  the  church  to  decree  rites 
and  ceremonies,  do  not  run  into  the  opposite  extreme,  as  some 


GOLDEN  MEAN. 


495 


have  done,  of  throwing  aside  all  regard  to  the  light  of  nature  and 
Christian  prudence  in  regulating  some  circumstances  concerning 
the  worship  of  God  and  the  government  of  the  church,  which  are 
common  to  human  actions  and  societies,  and  which  a  regard  to 
decency  and  order,  to  general  comfort  and  convenience,  may  require 
to  be  regulated.  The  principles  of  Presbyterians  upon  this  subject 
have  been  much  misunderstood  and  misrepresented,  and  have 
been  assailed  from  two  opposite  sides.  The  defenders  of  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  of  the  church’s  authority  to  decree  them,  have 
endeavoured  to  pour  contempt  upon  the  principles  of  Presby¬ 
terians  in  this  matter,  by  representing  them  as  seeking  an  express 
warrant  in  the  word  for  every  circumstance  connected  in  any  way 
with  the  government  and  worship  of  the  church,  and  allowing 
nothing  whatever  to  be  regulated  by  the  light  of  nature  and 
Christian  prudence.  The  second  book  of  Hooker’s  Ecclesiastical 
Polity  is  entirely  directed  against  this  erroneous  and  exagge¬ 
rated  view  of  the  Presbyterian  principle ;  and  though  Thomas 
Cartwright,  against  whom  chiefly  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity  was 
written,  and  who  is  there  usually  designated  as  T.  C.,”  may  have 
laid  himself  open  to  Hooker’s  attack  by  some  rash  and  unquali¬ 
fied  statements  upon  this  point,  yet  I  am  persuaded  that,  upon 
the  whole.  Hooker  did  not  represent  with  perfect  fairness  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  his  opponents  upon  this  subject;  and  at  any  rate  it  is 
manifest  that  the  great  general  principle,  with  the  limitation  and 
modification  contained  in  the  clause  of  the  Confession  we  are  at 
present  considering,  and  introduced  no  doubt  for  this  very  purpose, 
escapes  entirely  from  the  range  of  Hooker’s  argument. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  stricter  Congregationalists  in 
former  times,  professing  to  keep  much  more  purely  and  strictly  to 
the  standard  of  the  word  than  any  other  party,  have  alleged  that 
Presbyterians,  by  this  limitation  or  modification  of  the  general 
principle,  have  conceded  all  that  the  inventers  and  defenders  of 
rites  and  ordinances  require,  and  that  they  hold  as  unsound  and 
dangerous  views  upon  tliis  subject  as  the  prelatists.  This  is  not  the 
occasion  for  entering  into  anything  like  a  discussion  upon  this  point. 
But  even  the  few  hints  that  have  been  thrown  out  may  tend  some¬ 
what  to  convince  you  of  what  I  am  persuaded  can  be  fully  estab¬ 
lished,  that  Presbyterians  occupy  upon  this  subject  the  golden  scrip¬ 
tural  mean  between  two  unwarranted  and  indefensible  extremes. 


496 


FORTIETH  LECTURE. 


The  next  section  in  this  first  chapter  of  the  Confession  introduces 
another  topic  which  also  forms  part  of  the  great  general  subject  of 
the  rule  of  faith,  and  is  usually  discussed  by  divines  under  the  head 
of  the  perspicuity  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  thus  expressed : — 

“  All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike  clear 
to  all ;  yet  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  be  known,  believed,  and 
observed  for  salvation  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some  place  of 
Scripture  or  other  that  not  only  the  learned  but  the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use 
of  the  ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them.” 

This  is  a  priuciple  of  great  practical  importance,  but  it  will  not 
occupy  us  long,  because,  especially  after  what  has  already  been  laid 
before  you,  little  now  requires  to  be  said  either  in  proof  or  in 
illustration  of  it.  Protestants  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  perspi¬ 
cuity,  Papists  and  Tractarians  that  of  the  obscurity  of  Scripture. 
The  object  of  Papists  in  denying  the  perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures, 
even  in  necessary  things,  and  in  asserting  their  obscurity,  is  to 
furnish  reasons  for  keeping  them  out  of  men’s  hands,  and  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  necessity  of  tradition  and  of  a  living  infallible  interpreter 
to  explain  their  meaning  authoritatively.  The  object  of  the  Trac¬ 
tarians  is  the  same,  though  not  quite  so  explicitly  avowed  or  so 
strongly  stated.  Both  of  them  bring  forward  tradition  as  fitted 
not  only  to  supply  the  deficiences  of  Scripture  in  not  making  known 
to  us  many  things  which  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  believe  and  to 
do,  but  also  as  necessary  for  enabling  us  to  understand  many  things 
which  are  said  in  Scripture,  but  said  only  obscurely.  And  though 
the  Tractarians  have  not  yet  asserted  the  infallibility  of  the  church, 
they  have  said  much  fitted  and  intended  to  insinuate  the  difficulty, 
if  not  impossibility,  of  men  by  their  own  efforts  understanding  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  propriety  of  their  submitting  wholly  to  the 
guidance  of  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  in  this  matter,  while  they 
have  proclaimed  the  church  to  be  not  only  the  witness  and  the 
keeper,  but  also  the  interpreter  of  Scripture.  It  is  a  favourite 
maxim  of  theirs  that  tradition  teaches  and  Scripture  proves,”  by 
which  they  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  even  the  great  doctrines 
of  Christianity  are  so  obscurely  taught  in  Scripture  that  it  is  not 
fitted  to  instruct  men  in  the  knowledge  of  them,  though  after  they 
have  been  made  known  by  the  clearer  and  purer  light  of  tradition 
much  may  be  extracted  from  Scripture  that  tends  to  establish 
aud  confirm  their  truth.  What  Protestants  hold  in  opposition  to 


PERSPICUITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


497 


these  views  of  Papists  and  Tractarians  is  very  clearly,  carefully,  and 
precisely  stated  in  the  section  quoted  from  our  Confession,  and  it 
states  just  what  we  do  not  hold,  and  then  what  we  do.  We  do  not 
hold  that  ‘‘All  things  in  Scripture  are  alike  plain  in  themselves, 
or  alike  clear  to  all,’^  i.e.  we  do  not  deny  that  there  is  some 
obscurity  in  Scipture,  and  we  do  not  deny  that  some  persons  may 
find  a  great  deal  of  obscurity  there ;  and  this  explanation  is  neces¬ 
sary,  because  Papists  usually  misrepresent  our  principles  upon  this 
subject,  and  talk  as  if  we  denied  that  there  was  anything  obscure 
in  Scripture  to  any  one.  Bellarmine  gives  this  as  the  state  of  the 
question,  “  Sintne  Scripturse  sacrse  per  se  facillimse  atque  apertis- 
simse  an  vero  interpretatione  indigeant  ”  (p.  52).  This  is  a  great 
deal  too  vague  and  indefinite.  We  admit  that  there  is  obscurity 
in  Scripture,  and  that  there  are  many  men  to  whom  it  is  very 
obscure.  There  are  many  of  the  subjects  brought  before  us  in 
Scripture  to  which  from  their  very  nature  much  obscurity  attaches, 
i.e.  which  we  are  unable  fully  to  comprehend.  But  we  must  care¬ 
fully  distinguish  between  obscurity  which  is  inherent  in  the  subject 
itself  revealed,  and  obscurity  attaching  to  the  revelation  of  it. 
Obscurity  attaches  to  such  subjects  as  the  fall  of  mankind,  and  the 
sovereignty  of  God  in  connection  with  the  responsibility  of  man, 
the  trinity,  the  atonement,  &c. — an  obscurity  which  will  never  be 
fully  cleared  away,  at  least  so  long  as  we  are  in  this  mortal  state, 
and  possess  only  our  present  capacities. 

But  it  is  still  very  possible,  and  it  is  indeed  actually  the  case, 
and  can  be  proved  to  be  so,  that  these  doctrines  are  stated  or 
declared  in  Scripture,  clearly  and  without  obscurity,  so  that  from 
Scripture  we  can  ascertain  with  clearness  and  certainty  what  God 
requires  us  to  believe  concerning  them,  what  doctrines  or  proposi¬ 
tions,  because  revealed  to  us,  we  are  bound  to  receive  regarding 
these  matters.  This  is  a  distinction  which  is  sound  and  reasonable 
in  itself,  and  which  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  One  principal  proof 
of  the  obscurity  of  Scripture  commonly  adduced  by  the  Papists  is 
the  statement  of  the  Apostle  Peter  about  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
(2  Pet.  iii.  IG).  “As  also,in  all  his  epistles,  speaking  in  them  of  these 
things,  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood.''  The  rela¬ 
tive  which  here,  being  in  the  neuter  and  not  in  the  feminine 
gender,  must  refer  not  to  the  epistles,  but  to  the  things  which  Paul 

2  I 


498 


FORTIETH  LECTURE. 


speaks  of  in  them.  It  is  in  these  things  or  subjects  then  that 
Peter  says  there  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  no  doubt 
as  they  are  stated  in  Paubs  epistles.  But  still,  as  the  difficulty  of 
their  being  understood  is  predicated  directly  and  immediately  of 
things  and  not  of  the  epistles,  there  is  here  a  recognition  of  the 
distinction  to  which  we  have  referred.  There  are  some  things 
brought  before  us  in  Scripture  which  are  not  very  clearly  or  freely 
unfolded,  in  other  words,  to  Avhich  so  much  obscurity  attaches  that 
differences  of  opinion  might  not  unreasonably  be  expected  con¬ 
cerning  them,  and  that  men,  while  upon  the  whole  convinced  that 
they  have  attained  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scripture  regarding 
them,  may  not  always  hold  this  conviction  with  a  great  deal  of 
confidence,  and  may  willingly  admit  that  there  are  materials  for 
plausible  arguments  on  the  other  side.  There  are  passages  of 
Scripture  so  obscure  that  men  after  carefully  examining  them 
may  entertain  great  doubt  as  to  what  their  meaning  is,  and  may 
continue  uncertain  as  to  which  of  several  different  interpretations 
that  have  been  suggested  is  the  true  one.  All  this  is  true,  and 
should  not  be  overlooked  or  forgotten,  as  it  is  plainly  fitted  to 
impress  upon  us  the  conviction  that  God  intended  that  we  should 
continually  and  perseveringly  study  his  word,  and  may  reasonably 
expect  in  the  use  of  right  means  to  be  ever  growing  in  the 
knowledge  of  it.  But  we  contend  that  these  parts  of  Scripture 
which  are  in  the  sense  now  explained  obscure  do  not  respect 
matters  which  are  necessary  to  salvation,  points  either  of  faith  or 
practice,  ignorance  or  mistake  about  which  will  certainly  exclude 
men  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  While  we  thus  admit  that 
“  all  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  themselves,”  we 
farther  admit,  as  the  Confession  says,  that  they  are  not  alike  clear 
unto  all,  and  that  even  independently  of  the  great  fundamental 
distinction  based  upon  the  possession  or  the  want  of  “  the  inward 
illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God,”  there  are  differences  in  men’s 
natural  and  acquired  capacities,  in  the  attention  they  give  to  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  state  of  mind  and  feeling  in  which 
they  conduct  it,  which  very  materially  affect  the  actual  knowledge 
they  acquire  of  their  meaning,  or  what  is  virtually  the  same  thing, 
the  perspicuity  or  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures  to  them,  and  the  benefit 
they  derive  from  them.  Unlearned,  or  rather  indocile  and  unstable 
persons,  as  the  Apostle  Peter  tells  us,  wrested  some  things  in 


PERSPICUITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


499 


Paul’s  epistles,  as  also  in  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction, 
and  persons  of  this  description  might  of  course  wrest  or  pervert 
anything  though  it  had  no  real  obscurity  about  it. 

All  this  we  admit  in  explanation  of  the  position  which  we  maintain 
in  regard  to  the  clearness  or  perspicuity.  We  do  not  deny  that  in 
these  senses  and  in  these  respects  some  obscurity  does  attach  to  it. 
But  we  contend  that  all  things  necessary  for  salvation  are  clearly 
propounded  and  opened  in  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other.  You 
will  observe  that  what  is  here  described  as  “  all  things  necessary 
to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed  for  salvation,”  is  not  the  same 
as  what  was  described  in  the  former  section,  as  all  things  neces¬ 
sary  for  God’s  glory,  and  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and  life.”  The 
last  statement  from  the  preceding  section  includes,  as  we  formerly 
shewed  you,  everything  which  men  are  under  obligation  to 
believe  and  to  do  upon  the  ground  that  God  has  revealed  it,  even 
though  not  necessary  for  man’s  salvation,  in  this  sense,  that  ignor¬ 
ance  of  it  or  error  about  it  would  exclude  them  from  heaven. 
Everything  which  God  has  revealed,  and  by  revealing,  has  put 
men  under  an  obligation  to  believe  and  to  do,  is,  as  we  have  shewn 
you,  contained  in  the  Scripture  ;  and  there  is  an  obvious  sense  in 
which  it  is  necessary  for  men  to  believe  everything  that  is  declared, 
and  to  do  everything  which  is  required  in  Scripture,  inasmuch 
as  culpable  ignorance  or  deliberate  neglect  of  it  is  sinful. 

Everything  contained  in  Scripture  has  a  meaning,  and  was 
intended  to  convey  to  us  some  information  or  instruction.  It  is 
our  imperative  duty  to  ascertain  as  far  as  possible  the  meaning  of 
the  whole  written  word  of  God,  and  to  apply  it  for  forming  our 
opinions  and  regulating  our  conduct.  We  do  not,  however,  assert 
that  everything  which  is  thus  contained  in  Scripture,  and  which  it 
is  our  duty,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain  its  meaning,  to' receive  and 
apply,  is  clearly  revealed  or  free  from  any  material  obscurity. 
We  assert  this  only  of  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  salva¬ 
tion,  meaning  thereby  such  things  as  that  ignorance  of  or  error 
concerning  them  certainly  excludes  men  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  That  there  are  things  contained  in  Scripture  which  it  is 
necessary  for  man’s  salvation  to  know,  believe,  and  practise,  and 
that  there  are  things  in  Scripture  ignorance  of  or  error  about 
which  does  not  in  point  of  fact  exclude  men  from  heaven,  are 
doctrines  which  as  general  propositions  scarcely  any  man  who 


500 


FORTIETH  LECTURE. 


professes  to  believe  in  tbe  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  would 
dispute.  It  is  just  in  other  words  to  assert  that  there  are  some 
things  of  primary  importance  contained  in  Scripture,  about  which 
all  men  who  are  admitted  to  heaven  have  been  of  one  mind,  and 
have  followed  the  same  course,  and  that  there  are  other  points  of 
inferior  importance  brought  before  us  in  Scripture,  about  which 
those  who  are  at  length  admitted  to  heaven  have  while  on  earth 
entertained  different  opinions,  and  in  regard  to  which  they  have 
followed  different  practices.  But  though  these  general  proposi¬ 
tions  are  clearly  sanctioned  by  the  Confession,  and  should  be 
almost  universally  admitted,  yet  the  subject  is  attended  with 
some  considerable  difficulty,  especially  when  any  attempt  is  made 
to  point  out  the  line  of  demarcation  between  these  two  classes  of 
subjects,  commonly  known  under  the  name  of  fundamentals  and 
non-fundamentals ;  and  Papists  have  laboured  to  improve  the 
difficulty  to  the  utmost  for  the  purpose  of  involving  in  doubt  or 
uncertainty  the  great  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  perspicuity  of  the 
Scriptures  in  fundamental  or  necessary  things.  They  often  talk 
as  if  they  wished  to  deny  and  overthrow  altogether  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals,  by  urging  the 
equivocal  or  ambiguous  position  that  it  is  necessary  to  believe 
whatever  God  has  revealed.  The  different  senses  in  which  this 
position  may  be  taken  have  been  already  explained  ;  and  that  the 
difference  in  question  actually  exists  and  is  realised  can  be  fully 
established,  not  only  from  experience  viewed  in  connection  with 
Scripture,  plainly  teaching  that  many  men  who  have  differed 
from  each  other  in  their  views  of  some  points  of  scriptural  faith 
and  practice,  have  yet  unquestionably  exhibited  in  their  character 
and  conduct  those  things  which  we  know  accompany  salvation, 
and  therefore  we  cannot  doubt  have  been  admitted  to  heaven  ;  but 
likewise  from  these  passages  of  Scripture  which  imply  that  men 
may  differ  from  each  other  on  some  points  of  belief  and  practice, 
and  yet  may  and  should  cultivate  mutual  forbearance,  and  love 
one  another  as  brethren.  But  even  conceding  this,  for  Papists 
cannot  follow  out  fully  their  denial  of  the  distinction,  the  Papists 
allege  with  some  plausibility  that  since  we  lay  down  the  position 
that  all  things  necessary  for  salvation  are  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture,  we  must  first  of  all  produce  a  list  of  the  things  which 
are  necessary  to  salvation,  else  we  are  arguing  in  the  dark,  and  do 


FUNDAMENTALS  AND  NON-FUNDAAIENTALS.  501 


not  even  know  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  subject  of  the  proposi¬ 
tion  under  discussion.  Now  in  conceding  the  demand  of  the 
Papists,  Protestants  admit  that  they  are  not  able  to  produce  an 
exact  and  authentic  list  of  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  be 
known,  believed,  and  observed  for  salvation,  although  they  think 
that  for  all  necessary  practical  purposes  a  knowledge  of  what  are 
fundamental  points  may  be  attained.  The  Bible  itself  gives  us 
statements  which  either  expressly  assert  or  plainly  imply  that 
certain  particular  points  specified  are  fundamental,  and  that 
ignorance  or  disbelief  of  them  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  Further,  we  can  trace  a  pretty  complete  uniformity  in 
matters  both  of  belief  and  practice  among  the  great  body  of  those 
who  in  every  age  and  country  have  given  the  clearest  and  most 
unequivocal  scriptural  marks  of  enjoying  God’s  favour,  of  being 
the  subjects  of  the  enlightening  and  sanctifying  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  of  walking  in  the  way  that  leadeth  to  life.^  And 
besides  all  this,  we  are  able  to  form  a  pretty  exact  estimate  as  to 
whether  certain  doctrines  are  fundamental  or  not  from  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  their  nature  and  tendency,  their  relation  to  the  great  ends 
to  which  the  w^hole  revelation  is  manifestly  directed,  and  to  the 
leading  principles  on  which  it  is  evidently  based.  This  general 
idea  has  been  embodied  in  a  distinction  to  which  I  formerly 
alluded,  and  which  is  a  very  interesting  and  beautiful  one. 
Fundamental  points,  it  has  been  said,  are  those  which  have  been 
revealed  to  us  because  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  known 
and  believed.  Non-fundamentals  are  those  which  it  is  necessary 
to  believe  just  because  they  have  been  revealed  to  us.  From  the 
great  leading  principles  on  which  the  scheme  of  redemption  is 
based,  and  the  main  objects  to  which  the  Christian  revelation  is 
directed,  it  is  plain  that  there  are  some  truths  ignorance  or  un¬ 
belief  of  which  would  imply  a  rejection  of  these  principles  and  a 
frustration  of  these  objects,  and  that  therefore  without  the  know- 
led  Q;:e  and  belief  of  these  meu  could  not  be  resfarded  as  comino* 

o  o  o 

within  the  range  of  the  scheme,  or  as  conformed  to  or  concurring  in 
the  object  it  was  designed  to  accomplish.  These  have  been  revealed 
to  us  because,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the  character  of 
the  objects  contemplated,  it  was  necessary,  there  was  an  antecedent 
and  intrinsic  necessity,  that  they  should  be  known  and  believed. 

^  Milner’s  Histonj. 


502 


FORTIETH  LECTURE. 


But  there  are  many  things  in  Scripture  to  which  this  statement 
does  not  apply.  We  can  perceive  no  such  antecedent  and  inherent 
necessity,  no  such  intrinsic  fitness  about  them.  They  might,  for 
auo-ht  we  can  see,  have  been  omitted,  without  the  leading  objects 

o  ... 

of  the  revelation  being  thereby  frustrated  or  impaired.  We  perceive 
their  utility,  but  not  their  necessity.  We  are  bound  to  believe 
them  not  from  any  intrinsic  importance  that  attaches  to  them,  but 
merely  because  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal  them.  These 
views  enable  us  to  form  a  pretty  distinct  conception  in  general  of 
the  distinction  between  things  fundamental  and  non-fundamental, 
and  that  may  be  sufficiently  full  and  accurate  for  ordinary  prac¬ 
tical  purposes.  And  we  contend  that  nothing  more  specific  in  the 
way  of  deciding  what  points  are  fundamental  and  what  not,  is 
required  in  order  to  our  determining  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood 
of  the  doctrine  that  all  things  necessary  for  salvation  are  clearly 
revealed  in  Scripture.  The  difficulty  of  the  Papists,  as  adduced 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture  in  necessary 
things,  would  be  a  formidable  one  if  we  had  no  other  means  of 
determining  on  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  doctrine,  but  by  first 
finding  out  precisely  what  the  things  are  which  are  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  then  ascertaining  whether  every  one  of  them  is 
clearly  revealed  in  Scripture  or  not.  But  it  is  at  least  possible 
that  we  may  have  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  without 
needing  to  have  recourse  to  any  such  lengthened  and  tedious 
process.  Supposing  that  this  doctrine  had  been  explicitly  and 
totidem  verbis  affirmed  in  Scripture,  then  it  would  of  course  be 
received  by  all  who  believed  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible, 
even  though  they  did  not  precisely  know,  and  had  no  certain 
means  of  knowing,  what  all  the  particular  points  were  which  were 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  to  which  the  general  proposition  applied. 
Now,  this  is  in  substance  the  way  in  which  we  establish  it,  for 
though  it  is  not  asserted  in  Scripture  explicitly  and  totidem  verbis, 
yet  we  have  sufficient  materials,  in  considerations  suggested  by 
Scripture,  and  in  statements  contained  in  it,  for  adopting  this  con¬ 
clusion.  We  know  that  the  great  purpose  for  which  a  revelation 
was  given  was  that  men  might  be  made  wise  unto  salvation.  We 
know — for  that  has  already  been  proved  under  the  former  head — 
that  the  whole  counsel  of  God  is  contained  in  the  written  word ; 
and  if  the  Bible  was  thus  fitted  and  intended  to  make  men  wise 


FUNDA^IENTALS  AND  NON-FUNDAMENTALS.  503 


unto  salvation,  the  inference  is  certain  and  immediate  that  it  must 
contain  clearly  everything  necessary  for  obtaining  that  object. 
The  doctrine  is  plainly  enough  implied  in  the  scriptural  state¬ 
ments  about  the  word  being  a  light  unto  our  feet  and  a  lamp  unto 
our  path,  the  entrance  of  the  word  giving  light,  giving  under¬ 
standing  to  the  simple,  and  many  others  of  similar  import.  These 
statements  seem  clearly  fitted  and  intended  to  teach  us  that  the 
word  of  God  has  been  so  framed  that  it  plainly  opens  up  all 
necessary  things  to  all  who  have  access  to  it,  and  who  use  it  aright. 
Learning  is  not  necessary  for  attaining  a  sufficient  understanding 
of  these  things  which  are  necessary  to  salvation.  The  unlearned 
also  may  attain  to  it  if  they  have  access  to  what  is  really  the  word 
of  God  in  a  language  they  understand. 


LECTURE  XLI. 


ALLEGED  OBSCURITY  OF  SCRIPTURE  —  NECESSITY  OF  A 
LIVING  INTERPRETER— FITNESS  OF  SCRIPTURE  TO  BE 
A  RULE  OF  FAITH. 


This  great  truth  of  the  clearness  or  perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures 
in  all  things  necessary  for  salvation  may  also  be  confirmed 
by  an  examination  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  of  the  way  and 
manner  in  which  their  materials  are  disposed  and  arranged,  and 
the  style  and  language  in  which  they  are  written,  as  well  as  from 
the  consideration  of  the  effects  which  by  themselves  they  have 
often  produced  in  men  who  had  no  peculiar  natural  advantages  for 
understanding  them.  The  arguments  for  the  perspicuity  of  the 
Scriptures  in  necessary  things,  derived  from  these  different  sources, 
are  strong  and  conclusive,  and  might  easily  be  illustrated  at  length. 
But  this  is  unnecessary.  You  will  see  that  most  of  them,  especially 
those  derived  from  the  statements  of  Scripture,  and  those  deduced 
from  God’s  end  or  design  in  giving  us  the  Scriptures  and  putting 
them  into  men’s  hands,  go  directly  and  immediately  to  establish 
the  general  doctrine  that  the  Scriptures  are  clear  in  things  neces¬ 
sary  for  salvation,  without  imposing  upon  us  any  necessity  of 
settling  or  defining  precisely  beforehand  what  these  necessary 
things  are.  The  great  principle  of  the  perspicuity  of  the  Scriptures 
in  all  necessary  things  is  not  only  asserted  in  general  in  the  Con¬ 
fession,  but  is  further  explained  in  this  way,  that  these  necessary 
things  “  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some  place  of 
Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned,  but  the  unlearned,  in 
the  due  use  of  ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto  a  sufficient  under¬ 
standing  of  them.”  This,  you  will  observe,  is  very  cautiously  and 
moderately  stated,  and  does  not  certainly  make  any  unreasonable 


ALLEGED  OBSCURITY  OF  SCRIPTURE, 


505 


demand  on  our  faith  in  the  fitness  of  God’s  word  for  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  the  object  which  we  know  that  he  intended  it  to  be 
instrumental  in  effecting.  The  inference  surely  is  very  clear  and 
certain,  that  if  God  has  given  to  men  a  written  revelation  of  his 
will,  this  at  least  must  be  true  of  it.  The  words,  “in  some  place 
of  Scripture  or  other,”  were  inserted  to  guard  against  an  objection 
sometimes  adduced  by  Papists.  They  have  sometimes  pretended 
to  understand  Protestants  as  intending,  when  asserting  the  perspi¬ 
cuity  of  Scripture  in  necessary  things,  to  maintain  by  implication 
this  position,  that  all  those  parts  of  Scripture  which  treat  of  or 
refer  to  necessary  or  fundamental  points  are  clear  or  free  from 
obscurity,  and  on  this  ground  they  have  imagined  that  they  refuted 
our  general  doctrine  when  they  pointed  to  a  passage  of  Scripture 
which  was  plainly  enough  connected  with  some  point  confessedly 
fundamental,  but  which  yet  was  by  no  means  free  from  obscurity. 
We  reply  that  this  assertion  proceeds  upon  an  erroneous  notion  of 
what  is  fairly  involved  in  our  principle,  and  of  what  it  is  that  we 
really  maintain.  We  do  not  maintain  that  every  passage  of 
Scripture  which  bears  upon  a  fundamental  or  necessary  point  is 
clear,  but  merely  that  every  necessary  or  fundamental  point  is 
clearly  propounded  in  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other,  without 
denying  that  there  may  be  places  of  Scripture  where  this  same 
fundamental  point  is  propounded  less  clearly  or  more  obscurely. 
If  our  opponents  bring  forward  any  point  of  faith  or  practice  which 
they  can  prove,  and  which  we  admit  to  be  fundamental,  then  we 
are  bound  to  produce  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other  where  that 
point  is  clearly  propounded  and  opened.  But  we  have  never 
undertaken,  and  we  are  not  bound  in  consistency  or  by  any  logical 
necessity,  to  prove  that  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  bear 
upon  that  point  are  clear  or  perspicuous.  The  measure  or  degree 
of  clearness  here  predicated  of  Scripture  in  regard  to  fundamental 
points  is  this,  that  men  without  learning  may,  with  due  use  of  the 
ordinary  means,  attain  to  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them,  i.e. 
may  attain  to  salvation,  may  acquire  that  knowledge  of  God  and 
of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  eternal  life,  may  be  enabled  to  realise  and 
exhibit  that  holiness  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord. 
For  this  purpose  learning  is  not  indispensable,  but  the  due  use  of 
ordinary  means  is.  A  man  cannot  with  any  propriety  be  said  to 
have  access  to  the  Scriptures,  so  as  to  be  in  a  condition  of  testing 


506 


FORTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


or  affording  the  means  of  testing  their  clearness  or  perspicuity, 
unless  he  be  able  to  read  them  either  in  the  original  or  in  a 
language  with  which  he  is  familiar,  and  into  which  they  have 
been  translated  with  substantial  fidelity  and  accuracy.  An 
unlearned  man  may  be  regarded  as  one  who  has  not  access  to  the 
Scriptures  in  the  original  languages,  but  only  in  a  translation, 
who  knows  no  language  hut  his  own,  and  whose  mind  has  not 
been  much  cultivated  by  reading  and  study.  Even  such  a  man, 
as  experience  abundantly  proves,  may  attain  to  a  sufficient  under¬ 
standing  of  the  Scriptures — that  is,  may  find  in  them  all  the 
knowledge  necessary  for  leading  him  to  God  through  Christ,  and 
conducting  him  to  heaven  if  he  makes  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary 
means,  i.e.  if  he  study  them  with  diligence  and  perseverance, 
humility  and  prayer. 

It  is  upon  the  perfection  or  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
their  perspicuity  or  clearness  in  all  necessary  things,  that  Protest¬ 
ants  found  their  claim  to  be  received  and  employed  as  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  it  is  upon  a  denial  of  their  perfec¬ 
tion  and  perspicuity  that  Papists  and  Tractarians  maintain  that 
they  have  no  right  to  occupy  such  a  place  or  to  possess  such 
authority.  If  they  contain  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  if  they 
are  so  clear  in  all  necessary  or  fundamental  points  that  men  may 
attain  to  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them,  then  men  not  only 
are  not  bound,  but  they  are  not  at  liberty,  to  take  any  other  rule 
or  standard  in  seeking  to  ascertain  the  mind  and  will  of  God. 
They  must  concentrate  their  attention  upon  the  written  word, 
and  make  it  their  great  object  to  ascertain  its  meaning ;  they 
may  be  animated  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  by  the  assurance 
that  it  is  able  to  make  them  wise  unto  salvation,  and  that  with 
the  word  of  God  in  their  hands,  and  with  opportunities  of  reading 
and  studying  it  in  a  language  which  they  understand,  it  will  be 
only  through  their  own  sin  or  shortcoming  that  they  will  fail  in 
attaining  to  the  stature  of  perfect  men  in  Christ  Jesus.  Papists 
and  Tractarians  deny  its  perfection  and  sufficiency,  and  maintain 
that  there  are  truths  which  God  expects  and  requires  men  to 
believe,  though  they  are  not  contained  in  it,  but  handed  down  by 
oral  tradition  from  Christ  and  his  apostles.  They  deny  its  clear¬ 
ness  even  in  fundamental  things,  that  they  may  have  an  additional 
ground  for  asserting  the  necessity  and  authority  of  tradition  to 


PAPISTS  AND  TEAGTAPJANS. 


507 


aid  in  interpreting  it,  and  for  exalting  the  authority  of  the  church, 
i.e.  of  ecclesiastical  authorities.  So  far  the  principles  and  objects 
of  Papists  and  Tractarians  in  depreciating  the  word  of  God  are  one 
and  the  same.  The  Papists,  however,  go  somewhat  beyond  the 
Tractarians,  in  more  fully  and  formally  deducing  from  the  alleged 
obscurity  of  Scripture  the  necessity  of  a  permanent  living  inter¬ 
preter,  and  it  is  this  mainly  that  they  labour  to  establish  ^yh.en 
they  urge  the  obscurity  of  Scripture.  Their  views,  however,  on 
this  subject  come  practically  to  much  the  same  point;  for  while 
the  Papists  maintain  that  it  belongs  to  the  church  to  interpret 
Scripture,  and  that  she  interprets  it  infallibly,  they  admit  that 
she  must  be  guided  in  interpreting  it  by  a  regard  to  the  consent 
of  the  Fathers,  which  is  just  the  standard  set  up  by  the  Tractarians ; 
though  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  this  standard  has  no 
existence.  These  views  about  the  necessity  and  authority  of 
tradition,  its  right  to  be  received  and  regarded  with  equal  rever¬ 
ence  as  the  written  word,  and  about  the  obscurity  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  rendering  it  necessary  that  they  should  be  kept  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  people,  and  explained  only  by  the  church  as  a 
permanent  living  interpreter,  had  never  been  very  fully  or  for¬ 
mally  avowed  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  at  least  had  not  been 
imposed  upon  all  her  subjects  as  necessary  to  be  believed,  till  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  although  she  had  long  acted  upon 
them  in  practice ;  and  the  reasons  which  led  her  then  more 
formally  to  declare  them,  and  to  demand  universal  assent  to 
them,  are  abundantly  obvious.  The  Reformation  had  thrown 
open  the  word  of  God  to  the  people,  and  it  was  of  importance  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which  loves  darkness  rather  than  light, 
because  her  deeds  are  evil,  to  devise  some  means  or  pretences  of 
keeping  it  out  of  their  hands.  If  men  looked  into  the  Bible  at 
all,  and  then  thought  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  first  thing  that 
must  necessarily  strike  them  would  be  this,  that  there  are  many 
of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome  of  which 
not  a  trace  or  vestige  was  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  Tradition 
supplied  them  with  a  ready  and  convenient  answer.  These  things 
indeed  might  not  all  be  found  in  Scripture,  but  they  had  been 
handed  down  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  by 
uninterrupted  succession  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  are  there¬ 
fore  to  be  received  with  equal  piety  and  reverence  as  the  written 


508 


FORTY-FIRST  LECTURE, 


■word.  This  might  satisfy  some  people  for  a  time;  but  if  they 
continued  to  study  the  written  word  a  little  more  closely  and 
carefully,  they  could  scarcely  fail  to  become  more  or  less  deeply 
imnressed  with  the  conviction  not  only  that  there  are  many  of 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome  which  have  no 
sanction  in  Scripture,  but  that  there  are  many  of  them  to  which 
Scripture  is  decidedly  opposed.  How  was  this  notion  to  be  met? 
Discussions  about  the  meaning  of  scriptural  statements  the  Papists 
saw  were  likely  to  prove  troublesome  and  inconvenient,  with  such 
a  system  of  doctrine  and  practice  as  they  had  to  defend,  and  it 
was  therefore  thought  better  to  devise  some  general  plan  for 
evading  this  mode  of  warfare,  either  wholly  or  partially  ;  and 
accordingly  they  took  this  ground.  They  said  the  Bible  is  a 
very  obscure  book ;  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  it  even  on 
important  points ;  it  is  very  dangerous  for  the  laity  to  have  such 
a  book  in  their  hands,  for  many  of  them  will  certainly  mistake  its 
meaning  and  peril  their  salvation.  It  is  quite  unreasonable  for 
private  individuals  to  be  at  all  confident  about  understanding  the 
meaning  of  so  obscure  a  book  ;  and  in  order  to  make  any  safe  or 
certain  use  of  it,  it  requires  a  permanent  living  interpreter  to 
whom  it  belongs  to  explain  it.  On  such  grounds  as  these,  mani¬ 
festly  adopted  for  the  reasons  which  have  just  been  explained. 
Popish  controversialists  think  themselves  entitled  to  dispose  very 
summarily  of  any  dispute  that  may  arise  about  the  meaning  of  a 
passage  of  Scripture  by  an  appeal  to  the  church’s  infallible  inter¬ 
pretation.  They  do  not  often  indeed  venture  to  take  such  high 
ground  in  Protestant  countries,  and  to  rest  on  this  as  the  only 
answer  to  our  scriptural  arguments,  and  they  usually  condescend 
to  make  some  attempt  to  ward  off  the  weapons  we  direct  against 
them  from  the  armoury  of  God’s  word.  They  commonly  however 
take  care  to  let  us  know  that  when  they  deign  to  discuss  with  us 
the  meaning  of  a  passage  of  Scripture,  they  do  it  ex  gratia  or  ex 
ahundanti.  Bishop  Milner,  the  great  champion  of  Popery  in 
England  in  the  last  generation,  declares  that  when  a  passage  of 
Scripture  is  adduced  against  any  of  the  doctrines  or  practices  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  its  advocates  are  entitled  if  they  choose  to 
dispose  of  it  in  this  way :  “The  church  understands  the  passage 
differently  from  you,  and  therefore  you  mistake  its  meaning.” 

Papists,  besides  labouring  to  establish  the  imperfection  and 


PAPISTS  AND  TRACTARIANS. 


509 


obscurity  of  Scripture,  adduce  several  considerations  of  a  general 
kind  against  the  great  Protestant  doctrine  that  the  written 
word  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  in  favour  of  the 
necessity  of  a  permanent  living  infallible  interpreter ;  and  one  or 
two  of  the  principal  of  these  it  may  be  proper  briefly  to  advert  to. 
They  are  in  the  habit  of  adducing  the  fact  that,  in  many  ages  and 
countries  where  Christianity  has  been  known  and  professed,  men 
in  general  have  not  had  access  to  the  Bible,  and  that  even  yet  in 
some  professed  Christian  countries  there  are  great  multitudes  who 
cannot  read,  as  a  proof  that  God  did  not  intend  the  Bible  to  be 
the  only  rule  of  faith.  But  no  fact  of  this  sort  can  counteract 
the  testimony  of  God  himself  as  to  his  designs  and  intentions  in 
the  matter.  The  fact  referred  to  concerns  only  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  who  gives  to  men  what  amount  or  degree  of  privileges  he 
chooses,  what  means  of  knowing  his  will  he  thinks  proper.  He 
may  have  thought  proper  in  his  sovereignty  not  to  give  to  many 
men  access  to  his  written  word.  He  is  entitled  to  demand,  and 
does  demand,  of  all  men  that  they  shall  improve  to  the  utmost 
whatever  opportunities  of  knowing  his  will  he  may  have  been 
pleased  to  confer  ;  but  he  has  not  imposed  upon  men  any  obligation 
to  receive  as  coming  from  him  anything  but  what  is  in  accordance 
with  his  written  word,  and  he  does  require  of  all  to  whom  in  his 
providence  he  has  given  access  to  his  word,  that  they  shall  make 
it  the  only  standard  of  their  faith  and  practice;  that  they  shall 
take  it,  and  it  alone,  as  a  light  unto  their  feet,  and  a  lamp  unto 
their  path.  These  considerations  are  quite  sufficient  to  answer 
the  objection  which  has  been  stated,  and  to  shew  its  utter  irrele¬ 
vancy.  We  are  to  adore  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  arranging  men’s 
lot,  and  in  bestowing  upon  them  the  means  they  possess,  be  they 
greater  or  less,  of  knowing  him  and  the  way  of  salvation  ;  and  we 
are  to  cherish  the  deepest  compassion  for  those  who,  though  living 
in  professedly  Christian  countries,  are  shut  out  from  his  word  and 
left  to  the  guidance  of  Popish  priests,  blind  leaders  of  the  blind. 
But  because  in  God’s  sovereignty  they  are  left  in  this  miserable 
condition,  we  are  not  entitled  to  draw  the  inference  that  God’s 
word  was  not  fitted  and  intended  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  have  full  access  to  it,  that 
they  would  not  be  bound,  if  they  had  access  to  it,  to  take  it  as 
their  standard,  and  might  not  in  the  due  use  of  ordinary  means 


510 


FORTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


acquire  from  it,  by  God’s  blessing,  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  those 
things  which  are  necessary  for  salvation.  Papists  labour  assidu¬ 
ously  in  every  way,  by  all  sorts  of  considerations,  to  shew  that  the 
Bible  is  not  fitted  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  have  often  spoken 
of  the  written  word  with  great  contempt.  And  indeed,  when  dis¬ 
cussing  the  subject,  they  often  speak  not  only  as  if  they  did  not 
regard  it  as  the  sole  rule  of  faith,  but  as  if  they  did  not  regard  it 
as  a  rale  of  faith  at  all,  as  if  it  had  no  fitness  or  adaptation  what¬ 
ever  to  make  known  to  men  the  will  of  God.  They  commonly 
talk  as  if  they  believed  that  the  word  of  God  has  done  much 
mischief  in  the  world,  that  the  church  and  the  world  would  have 
been  in  a  much  better  condition  if  it  had  never  been  generally 
circulated,  and  would  now  be  greatly  improved  if  it  were  entirely 
withdrawn.  I  do  not  mean  of  coarse  that  they  say  all  this 
explicitly  and  in  so  many  words  ;  but  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  many  of  them  have  discussed  this  subject,  and  have  laboured 
to  prove  the  unfitness  of  the  written  word  to  guide  men  to  a 
knowledge  of  God’s  will,  in  a  strain  and  spirit  which  plainly  shew 
that  all  this  is  in  their  hearts,  and  that  they  would  openly  assert  it 
if  they  thought  it  safe  or  expedient.  Tractarians  practise  a  little 
more  decency  and  moderation  in  speaking  of  the  Bible;  but  the 
substance  of  what  Papists  assert  about  its  unfitness  to  make  known 
to  us  the  will  of  God  is  plainly  insinuated  in  their  favourite  maxim 
that  “  Tradition  teaches.  Scripture  proves.”  If  it  is  the  word  of 
God,  then  it  was  intended  to  teach  ;  and  if  it  is  not  fitted  to  teach, 
it  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  the  word  of  God.  Indeed,  the 
general  strain  of  Popish  statements  iipon  this  subject  is  scarcely 
consistent  with  an  honest  belief  that  it  came  from  him,  and  was 
intended  in  any  way  or  to  any  extent  to  communicate  to  us  his 
will.  In  this  as  in  many  other  subjects,  they  seem  to  have  no 
scruple  in  labouring  to  overturn  the  foundations  of  religion  and  of 
truth,  if  they  can  only  thereby  get  some  apparent  advantage 
over  Protestants,  or  some  plausible  pretence  for  advocating  sub¬ 
mission  to  the  authority  of  the  church.  Archbishop  Tillotson  has 
strikingly  described  their  conduct  in  this  respect  by  a  fine  allusion 
to  what  is  commonly  called  the  Judgment  of  Solomon.^ 

“  These  exceptions,  if  they  were  true,  would  not  strike  at  Protestantism, 
but  at  the  Christian  religion,  which  is  the  general  unhappiness  of  most  of  the 

’  Rule  of  Faith,  p.  70. 


PAPISTS  AND  TRACTARIANS. 


511 


Popish  arguments,  than  which  there  is  no  greater  evidence  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  not  the  true  mother,  because  she  had  rather  Christianity  should 
be  destroyed  than  that  it  should  appear  that  any  other  church  hath  a  claim 
to  it.” 

On  the  general  fitness  of  the  written  word  to  teach  men  the 
will  of  God,  and  to  serve  as  a  rule  or  standard  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  God  intended  it  to  serve  this  purpose, 
and  of  course  has  fitted  it  to  effect  it,  that  whatever  defects  may 
attach,  or  be  alleged  to  attach,  to  the  Bible  as  a  channel  of  con¬ 
veying  to  us  the  will  of  God,  we  have  no  other  certain  means  of 
knowing  what  God  would  have  us  to  believe  and  to  do.  He  has  put 
the  Bible  into  our  hands ;  he  has  enjoined  us  to  search  it ;  he  has 
fitted  it  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation  ;  and  he  has  given  us  good 
ground  to  believe  that  all  who  make  a  right  improvement  of  the 
privilege  of  having  it  in  the  due  use  of  ordinary  means  not  only 
may,  but  assuredly  will,  attain  the  great  end  for  which  this  revela¬ 
tion  was  given  them,  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  Christ  certainly 
thousfht  the  written  word  of  the  Old  Testament  fitted  to  teach 
men  and  to  be  a  rule  of  faith,  when  he  enjoined  the  Jews  in 
general  to  search  it,  that  they  might  there  find  him  and  eternal 
life,  while  he  solemnly  Avarned  them  against  the  traditions  of  men, 
and  directed  them  to  no  other  source  from  which  they  might  learn 
the  will  of  God,  or  which  they  might  employ  as  a  standard  of 
faith  or  practice.  His  own  discourses  he  must  also  have  regarded 
as  fitted  to  teach  men  the  knowledge  of  divine  things,  because 
many  of  them  were  spoken  openly  in  the  hearing  of  the  multitude. 
And  there  can  surely  be  no  good  reason  why  these  discourses  of 
Christ,  which  were  spoken  openly  and  indiscriminately  to  the 
multitude,  should,  when  recorded  as  they  are  in  the  written  word, 
be  kept  out  of  men  s  hands,  or  be  regarded  as  not  fitted  to  instruct 
and  edify  all,  be  they  what  they  may,  within  whose  reach  they 
may  be  brought.  The  epistles  of  the  apostles,  which  now  form 
so  large  and  so  important  a  part  of  the  New  Testament,  were 
addressed  openly  and  indiscriminately  to  the  churches,  and  were 
read  in  the  public  assemblies ;  a  plain  proof  that  they  were  fitted 
and  intended  to  convey  a  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  to  all  who 
might  read  or  hear  them,  and  who  might  use  them  right.  The 
great  leading  argument  against  the  fitness  of  the  written  word  to 
teach  men  the  will  of  God,  and  that  perhaps  mainly  employed  by 


512 


FORTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


Tractarians  to  enforce  submission  in  the  interpretation  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  to  what  they  call  Catholic  consent,  and  by  Papists  to  establish 
the  necessity  of  a  permanent,  living,  infallible  interpreter,  is  the 
fact  that  different  interpretations  have  been  put  upon  many 
portions  of  Scripture,  and  the  allegation  that  Scripture  cannot 
settle  its  own  meaning  and  determine  its  own  sense.  That 
different  interpretations  have  been  and  still  are  put  upon  many 
parts  of  Scripture  is  true  ;  but  it  does  not  by  any  means  follow 
from  this,  either  that  it  is  not  fitted  to  be  a  rule  or  standard  of 
faith  and  practice,  or  that  there  is  need  of  a  living,  infallible 
interpreter  to  explain  it.  Papists  commonly  allege  that  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  to  the  fitness  of  a  rule  or  standard  for  its 
intended  object,  that  it  should  de  facto  put  an  end  to  all  disputes 
or  controversies  about  those  matters  which  it  is  intended  to  make 
known  and  to  regulate.  This  however  is  an  unreasonable  demand. 
All  that  is  necessary  in  a  rule  or  standard  of  faith  and  practice  is, 
that  it  really  contain  all  the  necessary  truth  or  information,  and 
that  this  truth  or  information  be  so  presented  and  exhibited  as 
that  men  who  have  access  to  it  may,  in  the  due  use  of  the  ordinary 
means,  attain  to  a  full  and  certain  knowledge  of  all  things  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  ends  for  which  the  rule  was 
given.  If  this  can  be  predicated  and  proved  of  Scripture,  then  its 
adequacy  and  fitness  as  a  rule  are  fully  established,  and  anything 
seeming  to  indicate  a  coming  short  of  what  some  might  have 
expected  from  the  use  of  the  rule,  must  be  regarded  as  a  proof 
either  that  the  thing  desiderated  was  not  intended  to  be  effected 
by  this  rule,  or  else  that  it  has  not  been  attained,  not  through 
any  deficiency  or  inadequacy  in  the  rule,  but  through  the  fault  of 
those  who  have  used  it,  but  have  not  used  it  aright.  We  are  not 
entitled  to  say  that  God  intended  and  fitted  his  word  to  guide 
man  to  perfect  unanimity  of  sentiment  upon  all  the  topics  which 
are  more  or  less  fully  adverted  to  in  the  Bible.  There  are  different 
degrees  of  perspicuity  attaching  to  different  portions  of  Scripture, 
and  to  some  subjects  there  brought  under  our  notice,  about 
which  churches  and  individuals  have  entertained  a  diversity  of 
sentiment ;  and  we  may  say,  without  any  irreverence  or  presump¬ 
tion,  that  there  are  subjects  adverted  to  in  Scripture  which  God, 
if  it  had  so  pleased  him,  might  have  settled  or  determined  more 
explicitly  and  conclusively  than  he  has  done.  The  great  primary 


DIVERSITY  OF  INTERPRETATIONS. 


513 


object  of  the  written  word,  that  for  which  it  was  specially  fitted  and 
intended,  was  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation  ;  to  guide  them 
to  the  knowledge  of  all  truth  necessary,  according  to  God's  own 
arrangements,  to  be  known,  believed,  and  practised  for  their 
eternal  welfare ;  and  it  is  fully  adequate  for  this  object,  if  it  is 
such  as  that  men  without  learning  may,  in  the  due  use  of  the 
ordinary  means,  attain  to  a  sufiicient  understanding  of  all  neces¬ 
sary  things.  Papists  must  prove  that  the  Scripture  does  not 
reveal  ^11  fundamental  and  necessary  points  so  clearly  that  men, 
unless  through  their  own  fault,  may  acquire  a  knowledge  of  them, 
before  they  can  found  any  argument  for  the  unfitness  or  inade¬ 
quacy  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  upon  the  diversity  of  inter¬ 
pretations  which  have  been  put  upon  its  statements  on  some  points 
of  inferior  importance ;  otherwise  they  must  be  regarded  as  charging 
God  foolishly.  In  discussiug  this  subject,  they  commonly  enume¬ 
rate  all  the  sects  to  be  found  among  Protestants,  and  draw  a 
picture  of  the  differences  of  opinion  existing  upon  many  points 
among  them.  They  commonly  exaggerate  greatly  the  number  and 
magnitude  of  these  differences  ;  for  there  is  really  no  great  differ¬ 
ence  among  Protestant  churches  upon  fundamental  points.  They 
agree  to  a  large  extent  upon  all  necessary  things ;  upon  those 
things  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  which  is  necessary  to  salvation. 
It  was  to  illustrate  this  important  and  satisfactory  truth  that 
about  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  a  work  was  prepared, 
called  the  Harmony  of  the  Protestant  Confessions,  in  which  all 
the  Confessions  of  the  Protestant  churches  were  introduced ;  the 
portions  of  each  of  the  Confessions  bearing  upon  the  important 
matters  of  faith  and  practice  usually  set  forth  in  symbolic  books 
being  placed  together  in  immediate  succession,  that  thus  the  sub¬ 
stantial  harmony  of  them  all  might  be  clearly  and  palpably  brought 
out.  This  work  has  been  recently  republished  in  this  country, 
and  is  fitted  to  exert  a  wholesome  influence  at  a  time  when  it  is 
so  important  that  Protestant  churches  should  be  closely  and 
cordially  united  in  opposing  the  growing  influence  of  the  man  of 
sin,  whether  in  the  form  of  open  Popery  or  Tractarianisrn.  God 
has  not  only  so  framed  his  word  as  to  fit  it  for  guiding  all  who  use 
it  aright  into  the  knowledge  of  all  necessary  truth,  but  he  has 
pledged  himself  that  all  who  do  so  shall  attain  to  the  knowledge 

2  K 


514 


FORTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


of  all  necessary  truth,  and  to  the  salvation  which  is  connected 
with  it.  And  this  surely  is  enough.  None  to  whom  the  Bible 
has  been  made  known  will  fail  in  learning  everything  necessary 
to  be  believed  and  practised,  except  through  their  own  fault. 

There  is  indeed  a  truth  and  an  error  in  regard  to  every  subject 
brought  before  us  in  Scripture,  and  men  are  bound  assiduously 
and  perseveringly  to  use  every  means  in  their  power  in  order  to 
gain  a  complete  and  correct  knowledge  of  all  that  God’s  word  con¬ 
tains  ;  but  correct  views  upon  every  point  contained  in  Scripture 
are  not  necessary  for  men’s  salvation.  As  it  is  not  necessary  for 
the  great  purpose  for  which  the  Scriptures  were  given,  that  all 
men  who  study  them  should  interpret  every  portion  of  them  in  the 
same  way,  or  entertain  the  same  views  upon  all  the  subjects  that 
they  embrace,  so  for  the  same  reason  and  upon  the  same  ground 
it  is  not  necessary  that  there  be  a  permanent,  living,  infallible 
interpreter  of  Scripture.  The  Scripture  is  divinely  fitted  for  all 
the  purposes  which  God  intended  it  to  serve,  but  it  was  not 
one  of  these  purposes  to  put  de  facto  an  end  to  all  diversity  of 
opinion  among  men  upon  all  religious  subjects.  It  is  true  that  all 
error  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  traceable  to  something 
defective  or  improper  in  the  way  in  which  men  use  the  word  of 
God ;  and  it  is  also  true  that  men  are  not  only  bound  themselves 
to  use  all  means  of  attaining  a  thorough  knowledge  of  all  that 
God  has  revealed,  but  likewise  to  assist  their  fellow-men  in 
acquiring  thoroughly  correct  views  of  the  whole  of  God’s  truth. 
But  he  does  not  insist  on  freedom  from  all  error,  and  entire  accord¬ 
ance  of  sentiment  among  his  people,  as  indispensable  to  their 
salvation.  And  if  he  had  intended  to  exact  this,  he  would  have 
made  all  Scripture  throughout  as  clear  and  plain  upon  every  point 
as  it  is  upon  all  necessary  and  fundamental  subjects.  And  if  it  be 
lawful  to  argue  at  all  upon  what  God  would  or  should  have  done, 
we  might  be  warranted  in  saying,  that  if  it  had  been  the  will  of 
God  for  the  reasons  and  the  objects  commonly  alleged  by  Papists, 
to  have  appointed  an  infallible  interpreter  of  his  word,  who  was 
authoritatively  to  declare  its  meaning,  and  to  whose  decision  all  men 
were  to  be  bound  to  submit,  he  would  have  distinctly  and 
explicitly  informed  us  of  this  in  his  word,  and  given  us  directions 
which  no  man  could  misunderstand,  without  the  grossest  careless¬ 
ness  and  perversity,  for  ascertaining  who  or  what  this  infallilde 


INFALLIBLE  INTERPRETER. 


515 


interpreter  was,  and  where  his  decisions  were  to  be  found.  But 
as  this  is  manifestly  not  the  case,  as  there  is  no  clear  indication  in 
Scripture  of  the  appointment  of  an  infallible  interpreter,  and  least 
of  all  of  the  investiture  of  the  Church  of  Rome  with  any  such 
function,  the  pretended  infallible  interpreter  has  in  point  of  fact 
thoroughly  failed  in  securing  unanimity  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  among  those  who  all  profess  to  receive  it  as  the  word  of 
God.  Papists  surely  who  think  that  an  infallible  interpreter  has 
been  appointed  and  authorised  by  God,  and  has  been  always 
executing  his  functions  in  the  church,  should  be  constrained  to 
confess  that  a  provision  which  might  be  made  for  effecting  such  a 
result,  might  yet  be  abused,  and  might  come  short  of  its  object 
through  the  sin  and  perversity  of  man.  The  Scripture  is  actually 
instrumental  in  effecting  the  great  leading  object  which  its  author 
intended  it  to  effect,  the  salvation  of  all  those  who  make  a  right 
use  and  improvement  of  it;  and  it  comes  short  of  effecting  certain 
other  subordinate  though  in  some  respects  desirable  objects,  not 
through  any  positive  deficiency  or  unfitness  of  its  own,  but  through 
the  negligence  or  perversity  of  those  who  fail  to  employ  and 
improve  it  aright. 


LECTURE  XLII. 


INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHUECH— TESTIMONY  OF  THE 

FATHEES. 


The  subject  of  the  rule  of  faith,  taken  in  its  more  strict  and 
limited  sense,  comprehends  only  the  investigation  of  this 
question :  Where  is  the  supernaturally  revealed  will  of  God  to  be 
found  ?  The  Protestant  answer  to  this  infinitely  important  ques¬ 
tion  is,  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  canonical  Scripture,  excluding 
the  Apocrypha,  and  nowhere  else.  The  Popish  answer  is,  that  it 
is  to  be  found  partly  in  the  written  word,  including  the  Apocrypha, 
and  partly  in  unwritten  traditions,  i.e.  doctrines  and  precepts 
alleged  to  have  been  delivered  orally  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
and  to  have  been  handed  down  in  unbroken  succession  in  the 
church.  Protestants  admit  that  thev  are  bound  to  receive  as 
part  of  the  rule  of  faith  whatever  it  can  be  proved  that  Christ  or 
his  apostles  delivered  as  matter  of  public  instruction  to  the  church; 
but  they  contend — first,  that  we  have  not  the  slightest  ground  j 
to  believe  that  God  ever  intended  that  any  part  of  the  revelation 
made  to  men  through  Christ  and  his  apostles  should  be  handed 
down  by  tradition ;  and  second,  that  there  is  not  in  existence  any 
one  doctrine  or  precept,  not  contained  in  or  deducible  from  the 
written  word,  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been  delivered  by  Christ 
or  his  apostles.  Thus  we  establish  what  divines  commonly  call 
the  perfection  of  the  sacred  Scripture,  as  the  only  record  or  t 
repository  of  the  will  of  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  oral  tradition,  j 
And  when  it  is  once  proved  that  the  revealed  will  of  God  is  ; 
contained  in  certain  books  and  nowhere  else,  that  the  canonical  , 
books  of  Scripture  were  all  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  that  j 
we  have  no  other  certain  means  of  knowing  his  revealed  will  than  - 


INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  C  HU  BOIL 


517 


by  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  their  statements,  the  subject  of 
the  rule  of  faith  in  the  more  strict  and  limited  meaning  of  the 
words  may  be  said  to  be  exhausted.  Tradition,  however,  which  is 
introduced  by  Papists  and  Tractarians  in  opposition  to  the  perfec¬ 
tion  of  Scripture,  is  also  brought  by  the  same  parties  to  bear  upon 
the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  upon  the  question  not  merely  in 
what  records  the  revealed  will  of  God  is  to  be  found,  but  also  how 
the  meaning  of  these  records  is  to  be  ascertained.  They  deny 
and  labour  to  disprove  the  perfection  of  Scripture,  in  order  that 
they  may  establish  the  necessity  and  validity  of  tradition  as  a 
divine  informant;  and  they  deny  and  labour  to  disprove  the 
perspicuity  or  clearness  of  Scripture,  even  in  things  necessary  for 
salvation,  in  order  that  they  may  establish  the  necessity  of  calling 
in  the  aid  of  tradition  in  interpreting  it.  Tradition  being  thus 
introduced  into  the  question,  as  a  distinct  and  independent  topic, 
has  been  usually  discussed  by  divines  in  detail  at  this  place  and 
in  this  connection,  as  brought  forward  in  opposition,  both  to  the 
perfection  and  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture,  though  it  is  only  in  its 
relation  to  the  former  of  these  that  it  properly  bears  upon  the 
question  what  the  rule  or  standard  of  faith  is;  while  in  its 
relation  to  the  latter  it  rather  belongs  to  the  subsequent  inquiry 
as  to  how  this  rule  or  standard  of  faith  is  to  be  interpreted  and 
applied,  so  that  its  meaning  may  be  ascertained.  And  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  arrangement  usually  adopted,  for  the  reasons  just 
stated,  we  have  adverted  as  far  as  seemed  necessary  to  the  whole 
subject  of  tradition,  in  its  relation  to  the  perspicuity  as  well  as  the 
perfection  of  Scripture,  under  the  general  head  of  the  rule  of 
faith.  The  perfection  of  Scripture  is  at  once  a  more  important 
and  a  more  definite  subject  of  investigation  than  its  perspicuity. 
The  most  important  and  fundamental  of  all  questions  is.  Where 
have  we  revealed  the  will  of  God  ?  Can  we  prove  that  it  is  all 
here,  so  that  it  is  not  necessary,  and  we  are  not  under  any  obliga¬ 
tion,  to  seek  for  it  anywhere  else,  and  have  only  to  ascertain  the 
meanincf  of  the  record  ?  And  we  have  much  reason  to  be  thankful 
for  the  abundant  evidence  God  has  given  us  that  it  is  all  contained 
in  tlie  canonical  Scriptures,  that  it  all  lies  before  us,  stated  with 
infallible  accuracy,  in  the  Bible.  This  conclusion,  while  it  leaves 
us  at  full  liberty  to  make  use  of  any  assistance  which  may  be 
rationally  derived  from  tradition,  or  from  any  other  source,  in 


518 


FORTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  written  word,  not  only  exempts 
us  from  all  obligation  to  receive  as  based  upon  divine  authority 
anything  which  cannot  be  shewn  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  but  renders  it  our  duty,  from  a  regard  at  once  to  the  honour 
of  God  and  our  own  welfare,  to  refuse  to  receive  anything  which 
is  urged  upon  us  as  a  matter  either  of  faith  or  practice,  but 
unsanctioned  by  the  written  word,  a  course  which  is  not  only 
indicated  but  imposed  as  matter  of  obligation  by  our  Saviour’s 
conduct  in  regard  to  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees,  as  exhibited 
especially  in  his  positive  refusal  to  comply  with  the  tradition  about 
washing  of  hands. 

The  question  of  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture  is  in  some  measure 
one  of  degree.  We  admit  that  there  is  obscurity  in  the  Bible, 
and  merely  contend  that  it  is  clear  in  all  things  necessary  to  be 
known,  believed,  and  practised  for  salvation  ;  while  the  measure  of 
the  perspicuity  predicated  of  it  even  in  these  things  does  not  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  admit  of  being  very  precisely  defined  or 
described.  But  this  is  of  the  less  practical  importance,  because 
even  if  the  Bible  were  less  clear  than  it  is,  it  might  still  be  true — 
nay,  we  could  still  be  able  to  prove  that  it  is  true — that  we  have  no 
other  certain  way  of  knowing  God’s  will  but  by  ascertaining  its 
meaning,  and  that  he  has  not  appointed  any  authoritative  or  infalli¬ 
ble  interpreter  whose  decisions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  written 
word  we  are  called  upon  to  receive.  There  is  another  subject  to  which 
reference  has  been  repeatedly  made,  and  which  as  well  as  tradition 
occupies  a  sort  of  intermediate  place  between  the  subject  of  the 
rule  of  faith  and  that  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  viz., 
what  is  commonly  called  the  authority  or  infallibility  of  the  church. 
The  full  discussion  of  this  topic  would  require  an  investigation  of 
the  whole  subject  of  the  constitution,  functions,  and  government 
of  the  church  of  Christ  as  a  visible  society,  as  this  is  unfolded  in 
Scripture,  and  thus  falls  to  be  considered  at  a  much  later  period  in 
your  studies,  when  according  to  the  arrangement  usually  adopted 
by  systematic  theologians,  your  attention  is  directed  to  the  head 
which  they  entitle  Be  Ecclesia.  Upon  this  ground  I  do  not  at 
present  mean  to  attempt  anything  like  a  discussion  of  this 
important  subject,  but  merely  to  make  a  few  miscellaneous 
remarks  upon  one  aspect  of  it,  viz.,  the  relation  in  which  it  stands 
to  the  subject  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  the  interpretation  of  Scrip- 


INFALLIBILITY. 


519 


ture.  Papists  generally  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility 
of  the  church,  and  they  profess  to  be  able  to  establish  this 
important  doctrine  from  Scripture.  It  could  not  of  course  be 
received  upon  any  other  authority  than  that  of  God  himself,  for  if 
the  doctrine  be  true,  it  virtually  puts  the  church,  whatever  that 
may  mean,  or  wherever  the  infallibility  predicated  of  it  may 
reside,  in  the  room  and  stead  of  God  himself,  so  far  as  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  truth  binding  men’s  consciences  is  concerned.  It  is  rather 
remarkable  however  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  not  found  it 
convenient  to  give  any  formal  or  official  declaration  as  to  the 
precise  nature  and  import  of  this  doctrine,  or  as  to  the  party  in 
whom  the  alleged  infallibility  resides.  It  seems  in  the  highest 
degree  probable  that  if  such  authority  had  been  by  God’s  appoint¬ 
ment  vested  in  the  church,  this  would  have  been  very  clearly  and 
explicitly  asserted  in  Scripture,  and  that  abundant  materials  would 
have  been  afforded  there  for  enabling  men  to  know  where  this 
infallibility  was  vested,  and  that  the  church  which  claimed  it  would 
have  fully  determined  and  openly  proclaimed  what  the  precise  source 
was  from  which  infallible  decisions  were  to  be  asked  and  expected. 
And  it  is  sufficient  to  overturn  this  whole  claim  as  advanced  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  that  she  has  never  decided,^  and  dares  not  attempt 
to  decide,  the  controversies  existing  in  her  own  body  as  to  what 
the  party  is  which  possesses  this  important  attribute  of  infallibility, 
whether,  as  some  contend,  the  Pope,  or  as  others  allege,  a  general 
council,  or,  as  a  third  party  maintains,  evidently  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  glossing  over  the  difficulty,  the  Pope  and  a  general 
council  together.  Notwithstanding  this  serious  difficulty,  which  is 
sufficient  to  entitle  us  to  dismiss  the  whole  subject  without 
examination,  many  Popish  writers  have  made  great  use  of  this 
claim  to  infallibility,  bringing  it  in  on  every  occasion  to  remove 
every  objection  and  to  solve  every  difficulty,  as  if  a  decision  of  any 
theological,  ecclesiastical,  or  religious  question  by  the  existing 
authorities  of  the  church  were  at  any  time  sufficient  to  determine  it 
satisfactorily  and  conclusively.  Some  however  of  the  more 
cautious  and  moderate  Papists  have  defined  more  precisely  the 
functions  of  this  infallible  authority,  the  subjects  to  which  it 
applies,  and  the  sphere  within  which  it  operates.  And  in  so  far 
as  our  present  subject  is  concerned,  viz.,  the  way  or  manner  of 

'  This  she  has  now  done. — Ed. 


520 


FORTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


ascertaining  certainly  the  divine  will  revealed,  they  hold  that  it  is 
chiefly  exhibited  and  exercised — flrst,  in  determining  authori¬ 
tatively  what  are  the  unwritten  doctrines  and  precepts  which  were 
delivered  by  the  apostles  and  have  been  handed  down  by  tradition; 
and  second,  in  deciding  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  scriptural 
statements.  The  practical  difference  between  the  more  reckless 
and  the  more  cautious  Papists  in  regard  to  the  exercise  of  infalli¬ 
bility  in  these  two  departments  lies  chiefly  in  this,  that  the  former 
would  have  men  take  the  church’s  declaration  as  sufficient  authority 
for  any  assertion  she  may  make  as  to  the  apostolicity  of  tradi¬ 
tions  and  the  meaning  of  scriptural  statements,  while  the 
latter  admit  that  she  is  called  upon  to  produce  some  feasible  or 
plausible  evidence  that  the  particular  tradition  was  received  in  the 
primitive  church,  and  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  having  come 
from  the  apostles,  and  that  the  interpretation  proposed  for  a 
scriptural  statement  has  some  foundation  in  the  words  in  which  the 
statement  is  expressed.  The  former  is  the  view  which  is  practi¬ 
cally  inculcated  by  the  great  body  of  the  Popish  priesthood,  and 
received  and  acted  on  by  the  great  body  of  their  people ;  and  the 
latter  of  course  is  that  which  is  usually  put  forth  by  the  defenders 
of  Popery  when  they  are  called  upon  to  engage  in  controversy 
with  Protestants. 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  subjects,  viz.,  traditions. 
Papists  admit  that  some  evidence  must  be  produced  that  they 
were  generally  held  and  received  in  the  early  church.  The  only 
rational  evidence  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  writino^s  which  have 
come  down  to  us  from  that  period,  and  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
certainly  no  special  or  peculiar  advantages  for  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  these  productions  of  antiquity,  and  deducing  from 
them  what  were  the  doctrines  and  practices  that  generally  obtained 
in  the  church,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  beyond  what  Pro¬ 
testants  enjoy.  The  Church  of  Rome,  conscious  that  there  were 
many  of  her  traditions  which  she  could  not  prove  to  have  been 
generally  received  in  the  early  church  by  any  authentic  and 
genuine  documents,  has  forged  many  works,  and  ascribed  them  to 
men  who  flourished  in  early  times.  Many  of  these  forgeries  have 
been  detected  by  Protestants,  and  in  not  a  few  cases  the  fraud  has 
been  so  conclusively  exposed,  that  the  Papists  have  been  com¬ 
pelled  to  admit  it.  Indeed,  one  of  the  first  points  that  requires  to 


INFALLIBILITY  AND  TRADITION-. 


521 


be  attended  to  and  disposed  of  in  discussing  this  subject,  is  to  deter¬ 
mine  what  are  the  genuine  writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  not  merely 
what  are  their  genuine  writings,  but  whether  particular  passages, 
now  found  in  writings  admitted  to  be  in  the  main  genuine,  origi¬ 
nally  formed  a  part  of  them  ;  for  Papists  have  not  only  forged  many 
writings  ascribing  to  the  early  Fathers,  works  which  they  never 
wrote,  but  they  have  corrupted  and  interpolated  them  to  a  large 
extent,  by  inserting  passages  which  favour  their  own  modern  inven¬ 
tions.  These  facts — and  Protestant  writers  have  established  them 
by  unquestionable  evidence— are  not  fitted  to  produce  any  pre¬ 
possession  in  favour  of  the  claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  infalli¬ 
bility  or  authority  in  declaring  and  enforcing  apostolical  traditions. 
The  question  of  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of  the  writings 
ascribed  to  the  Fathers  is  of  course  to  be  decided  by  the  ordinary 
principles  of  the  historical  evidence  applicable  to  such  matters. 
Not  only  has  the  Church  of  Rome  no  peculiar  claim  to  decide  such 
questions,  and  no  peculiar  facilities  for  doing  so,  but  she  has  been 
conclusively  convicted  not  only  of  error  but  of  fraud  upon  many  of 
the  most  important  points  involved  in  this  subject.  Notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  zealous  efforts  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  make  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  more  numerous  by  forgery,  and  their  testimony 
more  explicit  by  mutilation  and  interpretation,  the  materials,  apart 
from  Scripture,  for  ascertaining  what  were  the  doctrines  and 
practices  that  obtained  upon  many  subjects  in  the  primitive 
church,  an  essential  step  it  is  admitted  towards  proving  any  point 
to  be  an  apostolical  tradition,  are  not  very  full  or  satisfactory. 
And  be  they  what  they  may,  they  are  just  as  accessible  to  Pro¬ 
testants  as  to  Papists  ;  and  the  former  are  just  as  well  entitled  and 
as  well  qualified  for  using  and  applying  them  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  whether  they  afford  any  evidence  of  apostolical  tradi¬ 
tions  as  the  latter.  If  the  Church  of  Rome  could  prove  that  she 
has  the  promise  of  the  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
declaring  what  are  apostolical  traditions,  or  that  she  has  been 
invested  by  God  with  authority  to  declare  anything  she  chooses  to 
be  an  apostolical  tradition,  of  course  the  controversy  would  be 
settled.  But  if  ordinary  historical  evidence  is  at  all  admissible  in 
deciding  upon  such  questions,  they  must  be  decided  throughout  by 
a  fair  and  unshrinking  application  of  the  principles  of  evidence. 
The  fitness  of  any  man  or  body  of  men  to  decide  them  must  be 


522 


FORTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


determined  solely  by  their  access  to  the  materials  of  evidence, 
and  their  capacity  of  making  a  right  use  and  application  of 
them.  Protestants  have  not  shrunk  from  encountering  Papists 
upon  this  field  of  the  evidence  that  exists  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  of  what  were  the  views  that  generally  prevailed 
in  the  primitive  church  on  the  various  points  in  controversy 
between  them,  and  have  carried  off  a  decided  victory.  Even  the 
Tractarians  admit,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
in  some  instances  erred  historically  in  setting  forth  as  apostolical 
traditions  points  which  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  generally 
held  in  the  primitive  church ;  nay,  which  it  can  be  proved  were 
not  then  generally  received.  There  is  scarcely  any  one  of  the 
leading  general  aspects  of  the  Popish  controversy  in  which  the 
argument  of  Protestants  is  more  triumphant  than  in  proving  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  has  required  men  to  receive  as  apostolical 
traditions  points  which  were  not  generally  held  by  the  church  in 
the  first  centuries,  and  which  therefore  cannot  be  proved  to  have 
come  from  the  apostles.  The  most  conclusive  evidence  that  a 
church  is  not  infallible  is  the  proof  that  she  has  erred  ;  and  while 
we  can  prove  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  not  infallible  by  shewing 
that  many  of  her  doctrines  are  contrary  to  Scripture,  we  can 
establish  the  same  general  position  by  proving  that  many  of  her 
pretended  apostolical  traditions  were  utterly  unknown  in  the 
church  in  primitive  times,  and  therefore  were  not  delivered  to  the 
churches  by  the  apostles.  This  controversy,  indeed,  in  its  details 
is  not  a  very  important  or  a  very  interesting  one.  There  are  few 
thino^s  more  wearisome  than  to  follow  the  track  of  some  of  the  old 
controversies  between  Protestants  and  Papists  about  the  views  of 
the  Fathers,  and  of  the  primitive  church  on  the  various  points  in 
dispute,  as  there  is  often  a  great  deal  of  obscurity  and  confusion 
in  the  extracts  produced  on  both  sides,  and  much  tedious  and 
involved  investigation  of  the  context  and  of  statements  made  by 
the  author  in  other  places  in  order  to  bring  out  his  real  meaning. 
Amid  the  confusion  and  obscurity  with  which  the  writings  of  many 
of  the  Fathers  abound,  the  Papists  have  been  able  to  produce  some 
passages  which  appear  to  countenance  some  of  their  doctrines  and 
practices,  and  the  germs  or  radical  elements  of  some  of  the  corrup¬ 
tions  of  Popery  began  to  appear  in  the  church  at  an  earlier  period 
tlian  perhaps  is  commonly  supposed  ;  but  the  proper  question  in 


CONSENT  OF  THE  FATHERS, 


523 


regard  to  any  point  in  dispute  is  not  whether  or  not  one  or  two  of 
the  Fathers  may  have  given  some  countenance  to  the  Popish  error 
or  to  something  like  it,  but  whether  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
contain  any  materials  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  point  under  con¬ 
sideration  was  delivered  by  the  apostles  to  the  churches,  and 
continued  from  the  apostolic  age  to  be  generally  received  upon 
their  authority. 

The  evidence  of  the  errors  which  have  been  committed  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  about  the  apostolic  origin  and  authority  of  particular 
traditions,  and  which  of  course  not  only  disprove  the  authority  of 
the  particular  traditions,  but  also  the  church’s  general  claim  to 
infallibility,  it  is  scarcely  worth  your  while  to  investigate  ;  but  you 
ought  to  know  something  of  the  general  principles  and  considera¬ 
tions  applicable  to  the  use  that  has  been,  or  should  be,  made  of  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers  in  establishing  apostolical  traditions,  and 
of  the  evidence  which  the  general  aspect  of  the  case  affords  against 
the  claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  anything  like  infallibility,  or 
even  actual  freedom  from  error  in  professing  to  make  known  what 
the  apostles  orally  delivered.  .  The  standard  work  on  this  general 
question  is  Daille  or  Dallseus’s  De  usw  Patrum,  of  which  War  burton 
said  that  it  brought  the  Fathers  from  the  bench  to  the  bar.  It 
was  published  originally  both  in  French  and  in  Latin,  and  an  old 
English  translation  of  it  has  been  recently  republished  in  this 
country,  as  being  eminently  suited  to  the  present  times  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  prevalence  of  tractarianism.  It  is  a  book  of  decided 
ability  and  great  learning,  and  is  well  deserving  of  a  perusal.  It  is 
of  more  importance  however  to  advert  to  the  alleged  authority  or 
infallibility  of  the  church  in  interpreting  Scripture,  because  Scrip¬ 
ture  exists  and  is  the  word  of  God,  whereas  there  are  no  authentic 
apostolical  traditions  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice  to  be  found 
in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  or  anywhere  else.  The  Church  of 
Rome  has  expressly  declared  that  it  belongs  to  her  to  judge  of  the 
true  sense  and  interpretation  of  Scripture.  But  she  has  never  been 
able  to  produce  from  Scripture  any  commission  to  this  effect,  and 
therefore  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  admit  her  claim.  This  is 
in  many  respects  the  most  important  part  of  her  general  claim  to 
infallibility.  It  is  principally  upon  the  ground  of  this  right  that 
she  claims  the  submission  of  men’s  understandings  and  consciences 
to  all  her  decisions  ;  and  every  consideration  which  she  thinks  tends 


524 


FORTY-SECOND  LECTURE. 


to  evince  the  necessity  of  a  permanent  living  infallible  interpreter, 
anything  that  can  be  extracted  from  the  promises  to  the  church, 
and  from  the  scriptural  statements  about  the  ordinary  exercise  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  by  spiritual  office-bearers,,  she  has  brought 
to  bear  in  support  of  it.  The  claim  is  from  its  very  nature  an 
absurd  one,  and  cannot  possibly  commend  itself  to  the  understand¬ 
ings  of  rational  men.  Christ  might  have  promised  so  to  guide  his 
church  by  his  Spirit  into  all  truth,  and  have  so  pointed  out  the 
source  from  which  the  decisions  of  the  church  were  to  be  learned, 
by  directing  us  to  the  Pope,  or  to  a  general  council,  as  that  we 
must  have  been  bound  to  receive  whatever  they  might  declare ; 
but  unless  the  Scripture  had  been  so  obscure  throughout  as  to  be 
unintelligible,  such  a  provision  or  arrangement  must  have  virtually 
abrogated  the  authority  of  the  written  word.  For  if  the  Scripture 
be  intelligible  at  all,  it  is  not  possible  that  men  can  believe  that 
that  is  the  right  interpretation  of  any  of  its  statements  which  may 
be  proved  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  words  them¬ 
selves  ascertained  in  the  ordinary  rational  way.  But  let  us  briefly 
advert  to  the  grounds  on  which  this  claim  is  based,  and  to  the  way 
in  which  the  right  claimed  has  been  exercised. 

[Notes  to  Stillingfleet,  pp.  155, 156, 157,  and  135,  136, 137,  138; 
2d.  edition,  pp.  208  to  212  and  pp.  186  to  189 ;  commend  books  as 
in  Notes  to  Stillingfleet,  p.  198,  and  2d  edition  214,  with  addition 
of  Theses  Salmurienses  and  Theses  Sedanenses,  which  are  specially 
recommended.] 


LECTURE  XLIII. 


GENEKAL  INTEGEITY  OF  THE  OEIGINAL  TEXT  OF  SCEIPTUEE 

—CONFESSION,  CHAP.  I.  SEC.  8. 

Having  shewn  that  the  written  word  of  God,  as  contained  in 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice,  we  are  now  called  upon  to  consider  how  it  ought  to  be  used 
and  applied  so  that  it  may  produce  its  intended  effects  upon  the 
church  and  the  world,  upon  individuals  and  commuDities.  And 
here  we  have  first  to  attend  to  the  public  or  general  use  of  the 
Bible  as  a  whole,  and  then  to  the  interpretation  of  it,  or  the 
accurate  investigation  of  its  doctrines  and  precepts,  and  of  the 
meaning  of  its  particular  statements.  The  eighth  section  of  the 
first  chapter  respects  the  first  of  these  subjects,  and  the  ninth 
section  the  second  of  them.  The  eighth  section  is  this,  “  The  Old 
Testament  in  Hebrew  (which  was  the  native  language  of  the 
people  of  God  of  old)  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  (which  at 
the  time  of  the  writing  of  it  was  most  generally  known  to  the 
nations)  being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular 
care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical, 
so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to  appeal 
to  them.  But  because  these  original  tongues  are  not  known  to 
all  the  people  of  God,  who  have  right  unto  and  interest  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  are  commanded  in  the  fear  of  God  to  read  and 
search  them,  therefore  they  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar 
tongue  of  every  nation  into  which  they  come,  that  the  word  of 
God  dwelling  plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an 
acceptable  manner,  and  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the 
Scriptures  may  have  hope.”  We  do  not  mean  to  enter  into  any¬ 
thing  like  a  minute  explanation  of  these  statements,  although 


526 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


there  are  some  important  scriptural  truths  here  set  forth.  The 
first  doctrine  here  declared  which  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  is 
that  the  Bible  in  the  original  languages  has  been  by  God’s 
singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages.  And  here  we 
have  to  attend  first  to  the  cause  which  is  alleged  to  have  been  in 
operation,  and  then  to  the  result  ascribed  to  it.  The  cause  is  the 
singular  care  and  providence  of  God,  and  the  result  is  the  purity 
of  the  Bible  in  the  original  languages.  That  God  should  have 
watched  over  his  word  with  care,  in  order  to  preserve  it  from 
destruction  and  corruption,  i.e.  in  order  to  prevent  the  frustration 
of  the  great  ends  for  which  it  was  given,  is  what  might  have  been 
reasonably  expected  beforehand,  and  it  has  been  fully  confirmed 
by  experience.  There  is  always  considerable  doubt  and  uncer¬ 
tainty  attaching  to  a  priori  speculations  about  the  divine  pro¬ 
cedure,  and  some  such  unwarranted  speculations  have  been 
indulged  in  upon  this  subject.  Some  of  the  opponents  of  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture  have  argued  that  if  God  inspired 
the  words  he  would  also  have  exercised  a  minute  superintendence 
over  the  transcription  of  every  copy,  so  as  to  preserve  accurately 
and  certainly  the  precise  words  originally  employed.  We  admit 
that  no  such  superintendence  w^as  exercised  over  the  transcription 
of  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures.  This  indeed  would  have  involved 
a  constant  miracle,  and  it  is  contradicted  by  actual  experience ; 
but  we  consider  it  presumptuous  and  sophistical  to  argue  back 
from  this  against  the  inspiration  of  the  words.  The  argument 
virtually  proceeds  upon  this  assumption,  that  whatever  reasons 
might  have  led  God  to  suggest  or  dictate  the  words  of  Scripture, 
must  have  also  constrained  him  to  preserve  every  identical  word 
as  originally  dictated,  whatever  amount  of  miraculous  interposi¬ 
tion  this  might  require.  And  independently  of  the  unwarranted 
presumption  of  such  a  position,  which  is  quite  sufficient  to  entitle 
us  to  set  it  aside,  we  can  positively  shew  that  most  important 
results  might  be  and  have  been  effected  by  the  original  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  words,  which  did  not  require  a  constant  miraculous 
superintendence  sufficient  to  preserve  every  one  of  them,  and 
which  have  not  been  frustrated  by  the  admitted  want  of  this. 
The  singular  care  and  providence  of  God  in  watching  over  his 
word  to  preserve  it  from  corruption  is  not  then  to  be  regarded  as 
miraculous,  but  as  exercised  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  provi- 


TEXT  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


527- 


dential  government  of  the  church  and  the  world.  We  cannot  lay 
our  hands  upon  anything  which  God  ever  did  for  preserving  his 
word  and  securing  its  integrity  and  purity  that  can  be  properly 
called  miraculous  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word.  But 
when  we  survey  the  history  of  the  Bible,  the  dangers  of  destruc¬ 
tion  or  corruption  to  which  it  has  been  exposed,  first  from  Pagan 
and  then  from  Papal  Borne,  the  great  probability  that,  humanly 
speaking,  and  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  these  two 
great  enemies  of  God  and  his  cause  might  have  destro3^ed  or  cor¬ 
rupted  it,  we  are  fully  warranted  in  ascribing  it  to  the  singular, 
though  not  miraculous,  care  and  providence  of  God  that  his  word 
has  not  only  been  preserved,  but  preserved  in  purity  and  integrity. 
God  specially  watched  over  it,  and  the  result  has  been  that  it  has 
always  existed  and  still  exists  in  the  original  languages  in  a  state 
of  purity.  When  we  say  that  the  word  of  God  in  the  original 
languages  has  been  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  it  is  not  meant  that  all 
the  words  contained  in  the  Bible  as  we  have  it  can  be  proved  to 
be  or  are  precisely  those  which  proceeded  from  the  inspired 
writers. 

There  are  some  small  portions  of  the  Bible  in  regard  to  which  it 
is  doubtful,  and  the  doubt  cannot  be  altogether  removed,  whether 
or  not  they  ought  to  stand  as  part  of  the  sacred  text ;  and  there 
are  passages  where  it  is  doubtful,  and  the  doubt  cannot  be  fully 
and  certainly  resolved,  whether  one  word  or  phrase  or  a  different 
one  proceeded  from  the  original  authors.  This  is  certain,  and  in 
regard  to  the  Greek  New  Testament  has  been  always  known  and 
conceded.  For  a  long  period  many  denied  that  there  was  any 
uncertainty  about  any  portion  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament,  or  even  any  various  readings  of  any  of  the  passages  it 
contains.  This  was  commonly  called  the  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew 
verity,  and  was  strenuously  maintained  by  most  Protestant  writers 
til]  after  the  period  when  the  Westminster  Confession  was  com¬ 
posed.  We  have  no  doubt  that  the  members  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  verity,  and  would  have 
ascribed,  had  they  been  called  upon  to  express  an  opinion  upon 
the  subject,  a  greater  degree  of  purity  to  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old 
than  to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  But  as  the  statement 
before  us  respects  equally  the  Greek  text,  in  which  they  would 
have  admitted  various  readings,  and  the  Hebrew,  in  which  they 


528 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


would  probably  have  denied  their  existence,  it  is  plain  that  this 
assertion  of  their  purity  was  not  intended  to  have  respect  to  any 
circumstance  so  insignificant  comparatively  as  that  in  which  they 
probably  supposed  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  text  to  have  differed, 
but  generally  to  their  freedom  from  any  material  or  substantial 
error.  The  reason  why  this  distinction  was  then  generally  made 
between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  text  was  because  there  had  not 
then  been  any  such  examination  of  Hebrew  MSS.  as  established 
de  facto  the  existence  of  various  readiugs.  It  was  not  based  upon 
any  considerations  of  a  general  or  a  priori  kind.  Accordingly  the 
matter  is  thus  put  by  Dr  Owen.  In  answer  to  the  allegation  that 
it  was  ridiculous  to  admit  various  readings  in  the  Greek  and  deny 
them  in  the  Hebrew,  he  says : — 

Why  is  this  so  ridiculous  ?  It  is  founded  on  no  less  stable  a  bottom  than 
this  experience,  that  whereas  we  evidently  find  various  lections  in  the  Greek 
copies  which  we  enjoy,  and  so  grant  that  which  ocular  inspection  evinces  to 
be  true ;  yet  although  men  discover  such  bitter  and  virulent  spirits  against 
the  Hebrew  text,  yet  there  are  none  of  them  able  to  shew  out  of  any  copies 
yet  extant  in  the  wmrld,  or  that  they  can  make  appear  ever  to  have  been 
extant,  that  ever  there  were  any  such  various  lections  in  the  originals  of  the 
Old  Testament.”  ^ 

It  was  uot  till  last  century  that  there  was  anything  like  a  full 
examination  and  collection  of  Hebrew  MSS.  establishing  that 
there  were  various  readings  in  the  originals  of  the  Old  as  well  as 
of  the  New  Testament,  although  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  verity  so  strenuously  contended  for  by  Dr 
Owen  had  been  generally  abandoned  before  that  time.  Nothing 
is  asserted  in  the  Confession  with  regard  to  the  Hebrew  text  which 
is  not  equally  applied  to  the  Greek,  and  as  various  readings  were 
then  known  and  admitted  to  exist  in  the  Greek  text,  the  purity 
here  predicated  of  both  could  not  have  been  intended  to  be  a 
purity  which  was  exclusive  of  various  readings,  but  merely  such  a 
purity  as  excluded  any  material  or  important  corruption.  And 
that  we  have  the  text  of  the  originals  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  in  a  state  of  what  may  most  justly  be  called  purity  and 
integrity  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted,  nay,  can  be  fully  estab¬ 
lished,  by  the  appropriate  evidence  applicable  to  the  subject,  the 
evidence  of  MSS.,  ancient  versions,  and  statements  and  quotations 

*  Epistle  dedicatory  to  Divine  Origin,  vol.  iv.  p.  383. 


PURITY  OF  ORIGINAL  TEXTS. 


529 


in  ancient  authors.  There  is  no  evidence  on  the  other  side  that  is 
worthy  of  examination.  Vague  allegations  have  occasionally  been 
made  that  the  original  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  have 
been  to  some  extent  depraved  or  corrupted.  These  allegations 
have  been  made  chiefly  by  Papists  and  infidels ;  by  Papists  for 
the  purpose  of  lessening  the  authority  of  the  written  word,  estab¬ 
lishing  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  increasing  the  credit  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  which  the  Council  of  Trent  decreed  was  upon  no 
account  or  pretence  to  be  rejected ;  and  by  infidels  in  order  to 
undermine  the  authority  of  Christianity  altogether.  Hence  this 
subject  of  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  original  text  has  been 
introduced  as  one  of  the  topics  of  discussion  into  the  controversies 
between  Protestants  and  Papists,  and  you  will  find  it  discussed  in 
some  of  the  old  systems — Turretine,  for  example — under  the  head 
De  Puritate  Fontium.  And  Owen,  in  the  work  from  which  we 
have  just  quoted  on  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  text,  makes  it  very  manifest  that  the  consideration  which 
made  him  so  jealous  of  various  readings  was  that  they  were  eagerly 
laid  hold  of  by  Popish  writers,  and  employed  as  pretexts  for  under¬ 
mining  the  authority  of  the  originals.  But  neither  Papists  nor 
infidels  have  ever  been  able  to  produce  anything  plausible  in  sup¬ 
port  of  their  denial  of  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  original  texts. 
Some  of  the  Fathers  have  indeed  charged  the  Jews  with  having 
designedly  corrupted  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  order  to 
evade  the  force  of  the  scriptural  evidence  for  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  This  charge  seems  to  have  originated  in  the  facts  that  the 
Fathers  generally  were  very  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  and  found  it 
convenient  sometimes  to  adopt  this  compendious  way  of  answering 
Jewish  objections,  and  that  many  of  them  believed  in  the  fable 
which  long  obtained  in  the  church  of  the  divine  origin  and  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Septuagint  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  No 
evidence  of  this  charge  against  the  Jews  has  ever  been  produced, 
and  it  has  never  gained  much  credit,  but,  on  the  contrary,  may  be 
said  to  have  been  universally  rejected  by  competent  judges.  It 
was  held  only  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  while  others  denied  it.  It 
was  received  indeed,  among  other  absurdities,  in  the  early  part  of 
last  century,  by  the  learned  but  eccentric  Whiston,  who  thus 
afforded  a  handle  to  infidels,  of  which  Collins  did  not  fail  to  take 


530 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


advantage.  Whiston’s  arguments  in  support  of  the  corruption  of 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  Jews  in  the  second  century  have  been 
fully  answered  in  the  third  part  of  Carpsovius’s  Critica  Sacra. 
Indeed,  nothing  has  been  or  can  be  established  against  the  integ¬ 
rity  and  purity  of  the  original  text  which  affords  any  plausible 
handle,  either  to  infidels  or  Papists,  or  which  in  the  least  affects 
the  truth  or  certainty  of  any  one  of  the  doctrines  or  precepts  of 
Christianity,  or  the  greatly  superior  purity  of  the  originals  to  any 
existing  translation. 

We  have  said  there  are  a  few  passages  in  regard  to  which  it  is 
doubtful  whether  they  ought  to  stand  as  part  of  the  sacred  text 
or  not,  and  that  there  are  various  readings,  i.e.  passages  where  it 
is  not  very  certain  which  of  two  or  more  readings  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  genuine.  The  subject  of  various  reading  we  shall 
reserve  to  a  future  lecture,  and  shall  briefly  advert  at  present  to 
the  general  subject  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  about 
whose  right  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  text  some  doubt  has  been 
entertained.  The  sources'  from  which  we  learn  what  is  the  true 
and  pure  text  of  the  Bible,  as  it  came  from  the  authors,  are  the 
MSS.  which  have  come  down  to  us,  the  ancient  versions  of  the 
Bible,  known  or  presumed  to  have  been  made  from  MSS.  then  in 
existence,  and  quotations  from  Scripture  in  the  writings  of  ancient 
authors,  presumed  also  to  have  been  taken  from  the  MSS.  they 
used,  or  statements  made  by  them  as  to  what  these  MSS.  contained. 
Manuscripts  are  the  direct  and  primary  source  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  sacred  text,  the  appropriate  evidence  bearing  upon  the 
settlement  of  this  subject ;  ancient  versions  and  quotations  in 
ancient  writers  being  relevant  and  important  only  in  so  far  as  they 
afford  proofs  or  presumptions  of  what  was  found  in  MSS.  at  the 
time  they  were  made.  But  these  secondary  sources  of  information 
are  the  more  important  in  settling  the  text  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  to  the  New  Testament  we  mean  to  confine  our  few  remarks, 
because  we  have  remains  at  least  of  versions  of  it,  and  we  have 
quotations  from  it,  made  at  an  earlier  period  than  any  MSS.  now 
known  to  exist.  Now,  when  we  say  that  there  are  passages  found 
generally  in  our  Greek  New  Testament,  to  whose  claim  to  a  place 
there  some  doubt  attaches,  we  mean  that  there  are  passages  in 
regard  to  which  there  are  some  materials  derived  from  these  legiti¬ 
mate  sources  which,  taken  by  themselves,  would  shew  that  they 


DOUBTFUL  PASSAGES. 


531 


are  genuine,  and  others  which,  taken  by  themselves,  seem  to  indi¬ 
cate  that  they  are  not,  and  that  we  are  therefore  under  the 
necessity  of  estimating  on  which  side  the  greatest  amount  of 
evidence  lies.  There  are  no  passages  not  contained  in  our  ordinary 
editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  have  any  plausible  claim 
to  a  place  in  the  sacred  text,  no  pretence  for  alleging  that  any 
portion  of  the  canonical  books  has  perished  ;  but  there  are  some 
passages  found  in  most  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  whose 
claim  to  a  place  there  has  been  disputed,  and  upon  grounds  which, 
in  a  few  cases,  are  sufficient  to  render  their  claim  at  least  very 
doubtful.  We  may  refer  to  some  of  these,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  the  evidence  bearing  upon  their  genuineness,  but  merely 
of  pointing  out  to  you  more  distinctly  a  class  of  subjects  the  study 
of  which  is  entitled  to  some  share  of  your  attention.  The  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Gospels  both  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  has  been  called  in  question,  chiefly  by  Socinians,  on  account 
of  the  impossibility  of  evading  the  proof  they  afford,  if  genuine,  of 
the  miraculous  conception  of  our  Saviour  ;  while  some,  who  are  not 
Unitarians,  have  been  tempted  to  give  some  countenance  to  the 
omission  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew,  on  account  of  the 
supposed  difficulty  of  explaining  and  vindicating  some  of  the  appli¬ 
cations  there  made  of  some  Old  Testament  statements  and  recon¬ 
ciling  the  two  genealogies.  There  is  however  no  rational  critical 
ground  for  denying  or  doubting  the  genuineness  of  these  four 
chapters,  for  they  are  found  in  all  ancient  MSS.  and  versions,  and 
there  is  no  more  reason  for  omitting  them  than  for  omitting  any 
other  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  which  some  men  may  not 
like  or  may  be  averse  to  receive.  The  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  of  which  the  genuineness  has  been  disputed,  and 
which  come  next  to  these  in  point  of  length,  are  the  last  eleven 
verses  of  Mark’s  Gospel,  and  the  first  eleven  verses  of  the  eighth 
chapter  of  John’s  Gospel,  containing  the  account  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery.  Of  both  these  paragraphs,  it  is  true  that  some 
MSS.  and  some  ancient  versions  have  them,  and  some  omit  them, 
and  therefore  as  this  cannot  as  a  matter  of  fact  be  disputed,  we 
must  weigh  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  and  endeavour  to  ascertain 
wl|ich  preponderates.  Different  opinions  have  been  entertained 
concerning  the  genuineness  of  these  two  passages  by  competent 
judges,  though,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  that  when  you  have  an 


532 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


opportunity  of  examining  the  matter,  you  will  probably  have  no 
great  difficulty  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  pre¬ 
ponderance  both  of  authority  and  of  critical  testimony  in  support 
of  their  claim  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  text,  the  preponderance 
however  being  clearer  and  stronger  in  the  case  of  the  paragraph 
of  Mark  than  in  that  of  John.  There  are  three  shorter  passages 
the  genuineness  of  which  has  been  disputed,  and  the  claim  of 
which  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  text,  at  least  in  the  case  of  two  of 
them,  must  be  admitted  to  be  involved  in  greater  doubt  than 
those  longer  passages  already  referred  to.  They  are  Luke  xxii. 
43,  44 — “And  there  appeared  an  angel  unto  him  from  heaven, 
strengthening  him.  And  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed  most 
earnestly :  and  his  sweat  was  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood,  falling- 
down  to  the  ground;”  Matthew  vi.  13,  latter  clause,  what  is 
commonly  called  the  doxology  of  the  Lord’s  prayer,  and  which  is 
not  found  in  the  Lord’s  prayer  as  given  in  Luke’s  Gospel ;  and  John 
V.  last  clause  of  verse  3  and  verse  4,  the  words  “  waiting  for  the 
moving  of  the  water.  For  an  angel  went  down  at  a  certain  season 
into  the  pool,  and  troubled  the  water  :  whosoever  then  first,  after 
the  troubling  of  the  water,  stepped  in,  was  made  whole  of  what¬ 
soever  disease  he  had.”  Now,  of  all  these  passages  it  is  true,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  that  there  are  MSS.,  ancient  versions,  and  the  de¬ 
clarations  and  quotations  of  Fathers,  both  for  and  against  their 
genuineness,  and  that  it  cannot  be  settled  with  any  very  great 
certainty  whether  they  ought  to  stand  as  part  of  the  sacred  text 
or  not.  There  is  a  considerable  preponderance  of  critical  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  passage  in  Luke  about  our  Saviour’s  agony,  and 
an  angel  strengthening  him,  and  it  has  been  generally  regarded  as 
genuine.  But  in  regard  to  the  other  two,  the  doxology  of  the 
Lord’s  prayer,  and  the  angel  troubling  the  water,  men  equally 
competent  to  judge  of,  and  to  estimate  the  critical  evidence,  and 
equally  disposed  to  reverence  the  word  of  God,  and  to  maintain 
the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  sacred  text,  have  taken  opposite 
sides  upon  the  question  of  their  genuineness.  There  is  one  other 
passage  found  in  the  ordinary  editions  of  the  New  Testament, 
whose  genuineness  has  been  disputed,  and  it  stands  in  this  peculiar 
predicament,  that  its  genuineness  has  been  abandoned  by  the  great 
majority  of  those  who  have  examined  the  subject  with  care,  even 
though  believing  in  the  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  doctrine 


STANDARD  OF  APPEAL. 


533 


which  it  teaches.  It  is  what  is  commonly  called  '‘the  heavenly 
witnesses'”  spoken  of  in  1  John  v.  7 — For  there  are  three  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
these  three  are  one.”  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  there 
is  a  decided  preponderance  of  critical  evidence  from  MSS.,  ancient 
versions,  and  the  testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  against  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  this  verse,  and  that  therefore  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
it  did  not  form  a  part  of  the  sacred  text,  as  it  proceeded  from  the 
hand  of  the  inspired  apostle. 

There  are  no  passages  not  contained  in  our  ordinary  editions 
of  the  Greek  Testament  in  behalf  of  which  anything  like  a 
plausible  claim  to  form  part  of  the  sacred  text  has  been  or  can  be 
put  forth,  and  those  to  which  we  have  referred  are  the  chief  ones 
whose  genuineness  has  been  plausibly  contested.  In  regard  to 
almost  all  of  them  there  is  a  preponderance  of  evidence  in  their 
favour,  and  there  is  not  adequate  ground  for  denying  that  they 
came  from  God,  and  were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Even  if 
they  were  more  numerous  than  they  are,  and  if  their  genuineness 
were  more  doubtful  than  it  is,  they  could  afford  no  adequate 
ground  for  doubting  or  denying  the  substantial  purity  or  integrity 
of  the  sacred  text,  its  perfect  sufficiency  for  all  the  purposes  which 
it  was  intended  to  serve  as  an  inspired  revelation  of  God’s  will. 
And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  position  that  the  word  of  God  has 
been  kept  pure  in  all  ages  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  it  has 
existed  in  purity  in  any  one  particular  MS.,  or  that  it  now  exists 
in  purity  in  any  one  particular  printed  edition,  but  merely  that 
God  has  preserved  it  in  purity  in  his  church,  and  has  given  to  men 
sufficient  materials,  in  due  use  of  ordinary  means,  for  obtaining 
a  substantially  accurate  record  of  what  he  has  revealed.  In  the 
passage  of  the  Confession  which  we  are  considering  there  are  two 
statements  made  concerning  the  sacred  text  in  the  original  lan¬ 
guages,  and  from  these  two  a  third  is  deduced.  The  two  prelimi¬ 
nary  positions  are,  that  it  was  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and 
that  it  has  by  him  been  kept  pure  in  all  ages  ;  and  the  practical 
conclusion  deduced  from  these  positions  is  that  in  all  controversies 
of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to  appeal  to  it — i.e.  to  the  sacred 
text  in  the  original  languages  of  Hebrew  and  Greek.  If  these  books 
were  originally  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  if  they  have  been 
kept  pure,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  they  must  form  the 


534 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


ultimate  standard  of  appeal  whenever  a  question  arises  as  to  what 
is  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  men’s  salvation,  for  the  determina¬ 
tion  of  men’s  opinions  and  the  regulation  of  their  conduct.  It 
might  have  been  supposed  that  there  was  no  great  need  of  formally 
asserting  such  a  proposition  as  this ;  but  in  regard  to  almost  every 
portion  of  religious  truth  the  church  of  Christ  is  called  upon  to 
oppose  and  contend  with  the  mystery  of  iniquity.  The  adherents 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  have  laboured  to  undermine  the  authority 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  the  original  languages  as  the  ultimate 
standard  of  appeal,  and  therefore  it  becomes  the  true  church  of 
Christ  to  assert  and  maintain  their  supremacy.  The  Church  of 
Rome  has  not  formally  denied  the  authority  and  supremacy  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  originals,  but  she  has  practically  substituted 
the  Latin  Vulgate  in  their  room.  The  decree  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  upon  the  subject  was  this :  That  the  Vulgate  Latin  was  to 
be  regarded  as  authentic  in  all  public  readings,  disputations,  preach¬ 
ings,  and  expositions,  and  that  no  one  upon  any  pretence  should 
dare  or  presume  to  reject  it.”  Now  this  decree,  in  the  natural  and 
obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  makes  the  Latin  Vulgate  the  ulti¬ 
mate  standard  of  appeal  in  all  controversies  of  religion.  But  most 
Papists  of  real  learning  have  been  thoroughly  ashamed  of  this 
decree,  as  well  as  of  the  other,  passed  at  the  same  session  by  not 
more  than  fifty  bishops,  canonising  the  Apocrypha;  and  as  they  have 
made  much  use  of  the  distinction  of  proto-canonical  and  deutero- 
canonical  in  order  to  seem  to  escape  from  the  degradation  of  hold¬ 
ing  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  to  which  they  are  all 
pledged,  and  which  unquestionably  puts  the  Apocrypha  upon  the 
same  level  with  the  canonical  Scriptures,  so  they  have  invented 
a  pretext  for  explaining  away  the  natural  and  proper  meaning  of 
the  decree  about  the  Latin  Vulgate.  They  allege  that  that  decree 
was  not  intended  to  hold  up  the  Latin  Vulgate  as  the  ultimate 
authoritative  standard  of  God’s  written  word,  but  only  as  superior 
and  preferable  to  all  other  translations.  And  it  is  true  that  the 
decree  is  introduced  with  some  reference  to  other  Latin  versions, 
and  the  necessity  of  making  some  selection  among  them  ;  but  in 
the  body  of  the  decree  the  words  are  absolute  and  unqualified,  and 
forbid  the  rejection  of  it  upon  any  pretence.  And  besides,  in  the 
immediately  preceding  decree  concerning  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
after  a  formal  enumeration  of  all  the  books  of  Scripture,  including 


VULGATE. 


535 


the  Apocrypha,  an  anathema  is  denounced  against  any  one  “  who 
does  not  receive  as  sacred  and  canonical  these  entire  books,  with 
all  their  parts,  according  as  they  have  been  usually  read  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  are  contained  in  the  Vulgate  Latin  edition.” 
Some  Papists  have  defended  the  principle,  which  seems  most 
obviously  taught  by  the  council,  and  have  openly  maintained  that 
the  original  text  is  not  the  ultimate  standard  of  appeal,  but  the 
Latin  Vulgate.  You  may  probably  have  heard  of  the  profane 
observation  of  Cardinal  Ximeues,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the 
Gomplutensian  Polyglot,  comparing  the  Latin  Vulgate  placed  in 
columns  between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals  to  our  Saviour 
upon  the  cross  between  the  two  thieves  ;  and  even  at  a  later  period, 
when  such  critical  investigations  had  been  more  attended  to  and 
were  better  understood,  the  editor  of  the  Paris  Polyglot,  in  his 
preface  to  that  work,  did  not  hesitate  to  make  this  declaration : 
“  Pro  certo  et  indubitato  apud  nos  esse  debet  vulgatam  editionem 
quae  communi  catholicae  ecclesiae  lingua  circumfertur  verum 
esse  ac  genuinum  scripturae  fontem.”^  Papists  who  advocate  such 
notions  usually  base  them  upon  a  denial  of  the  purity  of  the  sacred 
text  in  the  originals,  and  labour  to  prove  that  they  have  been 
corrupted,  while  they  contend  that  the  Vulgate  Latin  was  trans¬ 
lated  from  the  originals  before  these  corruptions  were  introduced, 
and  has  been  preserved  in  purity  from  the  apostolic  age  till  the 
present  day.  And  even  some  Popish  authors  who  have  not 
ventured  formally  to  assert  that  the  Latin  Vulgate  should  super¬ 
sede  the  originals  as  the  ultimate  standard  of  appeal,  such  as 
Bellarmine  for  example,  have  shewn  that  they  were  very  willing 
to  assist  in  disproving  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  text.  In  answer  to  such  allegations  and  attempts  Protest¬ 
ant  authors  have  not  only  defended  the  purity  of  the  sacred  text 
in  the  originals,  but  have  moreover  attacked  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
and  have  proved  that  it  has  no  well  grounded  pretension  either  to 
purity  or  accuracy,  and  that  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  more 
particularly  it  is  but  an  indifferent  translation  of  a  translation,  viz., 
the  Greek  Septuagint. 

There  are  some  circumstances  which  render  the  extravagant 
claims  put  forth  by  the  Church  of  Rome  on  behalf  of  the  Latin 

Vulgate  peculiarly  ridiculous.  At  the  time  when  the  Council  of 

« 

’  Simon’s  Hlstoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  p.  302. 


536 


FORTY-THIRD  LECTURE. 


Trent  declared  the  Latin  Vulgate  to  be  authentic,  and  forbade  any 
to  reject  it  upon  any  pretence,  the  text  of  that  version  was 
notoriously  in  a  very  corrupt  and  confused  state,  and  the  council 
gave  directions  for  preparing  an  accurate  and  authentic  edition  of 
it.  Nothing,  however,  was  done  with  this  view  till  nearly  thirty 
years  after  the  council  was  dissolved,  when  the  matter  was  taken 
up  in  earnest  by  Pope  Sixtus  V.  He  took  great  pains  to  prepare 
a  correct  text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  revised  every  sheet  himself, 
and  published  it  in  1 598,  with  a  bull  prefixed  to  it,  in  which  he 
decreed  that  “  this  was  to  be  held  as  the  only  authentic  edition 
of  the  Vulgate;'"  that  it  “was  to  be  received  as  true,  lawfully 
authentic,  and  undoubted  and  that  no  one  should  ever  after 
publish  any  edition  varying  in  any  respect  from  this,  under  the 
penalty  of  incurring  “  the  wrath  of  Almighty  God  and  of  his 
blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul.”  And  yet,  notwithstanding  this 
prohibition.  Pope  Clement  VIII.  in  two  years  after  published 
another  edition,  virtually  superseding  that  of  Sixtus,  and  varying 
from  it  in  no  less  than  two  thousand  passages.  A  full  account  of 
this  whole  matter,  and  a  table  of  all  the  variations,  was  given  in  a 
curious  work  published  in  1600,  entitled  Bellum  Papale,  by 
James,  keeper  of  the  Bodelian  Library  in  Oxford,  and  re-published 
a  few  years  ago.  The  leading  facts  and  documents  connected  with 
this  matter  are  also  given  in  a  work  of  prodigious  learning  by  Dr 
Hodge,  entitled  De  Bihliorum  textihus  originalihus,  versionibus 
Greeds,  et  Latina  vulgata.  Hodge's  work  contains  also,  especially 
in  Book  III.,  the  fullest  information  on  all  general  matters  con¬ 
nected  with  the  sacred  text  in  the  original,  and  in  the  Greek  and 
Latin  versions,  and  a  most  elaborate  vindication  of  the  position 
we  have  been  considering,  viz.,  that  the  original  text  in  Hebrew 
and  Greek  is  the  ultimate  standard  of  appeal  in  all  controversies 
of  religion. 

If  it  is  to  the  sacred  text  in  the  original  languages  that  the 
ultimate  appeal  lies  in  all  discussions  that  may  arise,  as  to  what 
really  is  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  guidance  and  salvation, 
then  it  is  plainly  the  duty  of  all  who  aspire  to  be  the  religious 
guides  and  instructors  of  others  to  be  capable  of  making  this 
appeal,  or  of  following  any  one  who  may  challenge  them  to  that 
tribunal.  “  The  people  of  God  everywhere  have  right  unto  and  in¬ 
terest  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  commanded  in  the  fear  of  God  to 


STUDY  OF  SCRIPTURE  IN  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGES.  537 


search  them,  and  therefore  they  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar 
language  of  every  nation  into  which  they  come  and  these  trans¬ 
lations,  if  in  the  main  faithfully  and  correctly  executed,  will  be, 
as  they  have  often  been,  blessed  by  God  for  leading  men,  who 
know  no  language  but  their  own,  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of 
the  truth,  and  conducting  them  in  safety  to  his  own  presence. 
Many  who  have  had  only  translations  of  the  Bible  have,  through 
patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  attained  to  hope — a  hope 
which  has  never  made  them  ashamed.  But  this  affords  no  reason 
why  all,  as  they  may  have  opportunity,  and  especially  all  who  have 
devoted  their  lives  to  the  instruction  of  others  and  the  mainten¬ 
ance  of  the  truth  and  cause  of  Christ,  should  not  acquire  such  a 
knowledge  of  the  original  as  to  enable  them  to  read  and  under¬ 
stand  it,  and  to  judge  of  the  attempts  of  others  to  explain  and 
illustrate  it.  I  have  already,  at  an  earlier  period  of  the  session, 
enforced  upon  you  the  duty  of  acquiring  such  a  familiarity  with 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages  as  may  enable  you  to  read 
the  Scriptures  in  the  original  with  ease  and  pleasure.  I  trust  that 
amid  your  other  labours  for  the  last  few  months,  you  have  been 
doing  something  for  the  attainment  of  this  important  object,  and 
can  already  bear  some  testimony  to  the  advantage  and  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  attending  it.  I  think,  however,  the  right  ground  on  which 
this  matter  should  be  put  and  enforced,  is  not  so  much  that  it  is 
both  profitable  and  pleasant  to  be  familiar  with  the  word  of  God 
in  the  original  languages,  although  that  is  undoubtedly  true,  but 
rather  that  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  all  to  acquire  as  thorough 
a  knowledge  of  the  written  word  as  their  circumstances  reasonably 
admit  of ;  that  this  duty  is  specially  incumbent  upon  those  who 
aspire  to  be  the  instructors  of  others  and  the  defenders  of  the 
truth ;  that  you  all  have  opportunities  of  being  able  to  read  the 
Scriptures  in  the  original,  an  important  means  of  knowing  them 
more  thoroughly  than  is  otherwise  practicable,  and  that  to  neglect 
these  opportunities,  and  thereby  fail  in  attaining  the  object,  indi¬ 
cates  an  improper  and  sinful  state  of  mind,  and  involves  a  manifest 
dereliction  of  an  imperative  obligation. 


LECTURE  XLIV. 


VARIOUS  READINGS. 


IN  discussing  the  subject  of  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the 
sacred  text  in  the  original  languages,  we  explained  to  you 
the  sense  in  which  its  asserted  purity  was  to  be  understood, 
and  the  limitations  with  which  it  was  to  be  received ;  and  we 
pointed  out  to  you  the  sources  from  which  our  knowledge  of  the 
exact  text  of  God’s  word  is  to  be  derived.  Though  it  is  owing, 
as  the  Confession  says,  to  the  singular  care  and  providence  of 
God  that  the  church  has  always  had,  and  that  we  still  have, 
Ins  word  in  the  original  languages  in  purity  and  integrity,  yet 
tills  care  was  not  miraculously  exercised  in  the  way  of  securing 
the  precise  and  rigid  accuracy  of  the  copies  which  were  taken 
of  the  autographs  of  the  inspired  authors,  and  by  means  of  which 
the  books  of  Scripture  have  come  down  to  us.  The  transcription 
and  circulation  of  the  copies  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  early 
times  was  left  to  the  operation  of  ordinary  means  and  influences ; 
and  the  consequence  is,  that  while  we  have  the  sacred  text  in  the 
original  languages  in  a  state  of  what  may  with  perfect  propriety 
be  called  purity  and  integrity,  we  cannot  always  and  in  every 
instance  be  certain  that  we  have  the  precise  words  of  the  authors. 
There  is  no  ground  to  suspect  that  any  passage  which  ever  formed 
a  part  of  the  books  which  compose  the  New  Testament  has 
perished,  and  is  not  now  to  be  found.  But,  as  we  shewed  you  in 
last  lecture,  there  are  a  few  passages  commonly  found  in  the 

editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  embodied  in  most  of  the 

% 

translations  of  it  into  modern  languages,  whose  claim  to  a  place 
ill  the  sacred  text  is  attended  with  some  degree  of  doubt;  in  other 
words,  in  regard  to  which  there  are  some  materials  derived  from 
the  ordinary  legitimate  sources  applicable  to  the  subject,  which. 


VARIOUS  READ! ms. 


539 


taken  by  themselves,  seem  to  shew  that  the  passages  referred  to 
should  not  stand  in  the  sacred  text,  although  in  many  cases  they 
are  counterbalanced  by  a  preponderance  of  equally  satisfactory 
materials  derived  from  the  same  sources  in  support  of  their 
claim.  To  most  of  these  passages  (all  of  them  indeed  extending 
to  the  length  of  a  verse),  we  briefly  adverted  in  last  lecture,  and 
shewed  you  that  the  facts  concerning  them  implied  nothing 
whatever  inconsistent  with  the  substantial  purity  and  integrity  of 
the  sacred  text.  There  is,  however,  another  subject  connected 
with  this  matter  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  advert,  that,  viz.,  of 
various  readings.  There  are  a  considerable  number  of  passages 
in  the  New  Testament,  for  to  it  we  mean  to  confine  our  observa¬ 
tions,  in  reofard  to  which  we  have  one  or  more  different  forms 
suggested  by  MSS.,  ancient  versions,  and  statements  of  early 
writers  as  to  how  the  text  should  stand,  and  we  must  of  course 
decide  by  comparing  the  evidence  for  each  reading  which  of  them 
was  most  probably  that  which  proceeded  from  the  author.  Many 
men  have  laboured  with  the  utmost  zeal  and  industry  to  collect 
from  every  source  the  various  readings  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  they  have  now  been  swelled  up,  I  believe,  to  about  the 
number  of  150,000.  This  seems  somewhat  formidable  and 
alarming  when  stated  thus  generally,  but  when  you  draw  near 
and  examine  the  true  state  of  the  case,  it  sinks  into  significance. 
The  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  are  greatly  more  numerous  than 
those  of  any  other  ancient  author  whatever,  and  every  jot  or  tittle, 
even  to  a  single  letter,  in  which  any  one  of  them  differs  from  the 
rest,  has  been  carefully  noted  and  put  down  as  a  various  reading. 
Of  course  a  vast  proportion  of  what  are  called  various  readings 
are  mere  errata,  oversights  in  transcription,  which  at  once  occur 
in  their  true  character  to  every  one  who  reads  them,  and  are  at 
once  and  without  any  hesitation  traced  to  their  true  source  in 
the  natural  and  ordinary  oversights  incident  to  transcription, 
without  being  supposed  to  afford  a  shadow  of  proof  or  even  of 
presumption  that  they  existed  in  the  MS.  from  which  the  one 
under  consideration  may  have  been  copied,  not  to  speak  of  the 
autograph  or  original.  This  consideration  at  once  disposes  of  a 
vast  proportion  of  the  variations  in  the  MSS.  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  which  have  been  put  down  as  various  readings.  Nothing 
ought  to  be  considered  as  being,  properly  speaking,  a  various 


540 


FORTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


reading,  which  is  a  mere  erratum  or  oversight  in  the  transcrip¬ 
tion,  nothing  hut  what  is  of  such  a  character  and  so  circum¬ 
stanced  as  that  it  may  possibly  or  probably  have  formed  part  of 
the  MS.  of  the  author,  or  in  regard  to  which  we  are  not  entitled 
positively  to  aver  that  it  was  a  mere  oversight  in  the  transcrip¬ 
tion.  Every  additional  MS.  that  has  been  discovered  and  col¬ 
lated  has  of  course  greatly  increased  the  number  of  various  readings, 
just  because  all  the  errata  which  that  particular  MS.  happened  to 
contain  were  at  once  added  to  the  list  already  existing. 

When  Mill  published  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  in  the 
early  part  of  last  century,  the  number  of  various  readings  was 
computed  to  be  about  30,000.  By  the  discovery  and  collation  of 
additional  MSS.,  they  have  been  swelled  to  above  five  times  as 
many  ;  but  we  have  scarcely  any  more  various  readings,  properly 
so  called,  than  we  had  then,  and  the  accuracy  and  certainty  of  the 
text  have  been  increased  instead  of  being  diminished.  When 
Mill’s  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  was  first  published,  with  its 
vast  array  of  various  readings,  some  of  the  friends  of  religion  were 
alarmed  at  the  uncertainty  which  this  fact  seemed  to  attach  to 
the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  sacred  text,  and  infidels  were 
disposed  to  triumph,  as  if  it  afforded  an  argument  in  support  of  their 
cause.  It  was  shewn,  however,  especially  by  Bentley,  in  his  cele¬ 
brated  Remarks  on  Collins  s  Disconrse  on  Freethinhing — first, 
that  when  such  variations  as  those  which  formed  a  vast  proportion 
of  what  was  exhibited  in  Mill  were  reckoned  various  readings,  the 
number  must  be  greatly  increased  by  every  addition  to  the  number 
of  MSS.  discovered  and  collated ;  second,  that  the  accuracy  with 
which  we  can  set  forth  the  text  of  any  ancient  author,  and  the 
certainty  that  we  have  in  the  main  what  he  really  wrote,  is  usually 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  MSS.  of  his  works  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  and  therefore  by  the  former  proposition,  is  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  various  readings  ;  and  third,  that 
in  consequence  of  the  great  number  of  MSS.  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  we  have  a  much  more  accurate  and  a  much  more 
thoroughly  established  text  of  the  New  Testament  than  we  have 
of  any  of  the  Greek  or  Homan  classics.  These  considerations  are 
quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  number  of  what  are  called 
various  readings  affords  no  ground  whatever  for  an  infidel  triumph, 
and  to  quiet  the  alarms  of  the  friends  of  revelation.  Still  there  is 


VARIOUS  READINGS. 


541 


a  considerable  number  of  what  may  be  fairly  called  various 
readings,  i.e.  variations  which  cannot  at  once  be  set  aside  as 
having  manifestly  been  mere  errata  or  errors  in  transcription,  and 
in  regard  to  which  there  is  some  evidence,  however  slight,  tending 
to  shew,  if  not  counterbalanced  or  contradicted,  that  they  formed 
part  of  the  original  text.  But  these  too  when  examined  are  seen 
to  be  of  scarcely  any  importance  as  affecting  the  purity  and 
integrity  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  There  are  two  things  that 
must  combine  to  make  a  various  reading  at  all  important — first, 
it  must  be  such  that  the  sense  or  meaning  of  the  passage  is 
materially  affected,  according  as  you  adopt  the  one  reading  or  the 
other;  and  second,  that  the  critical  evidence  bearing  upon  the 
point  be  such  that  there  is  really  ground  for  serious  and  honest 
doubt  which  of  two  readings  ought  to  stand  as  part  of  the  text. 
If  the  sense  is  not  materially  affected  by  the  adoption  of  one 
reading  in  preference  to  the  other,  or  if  the  evidence  in  favour  of 
one  of  the  readings  so  decidedl}^^  preponderates  as  to  leave  little 
room  for  reasonable  doubt  as  to  which  ought  to  be  preferred,  then 
the  case  may  be  dismissed  as  one  of  no  practical  importance 
whatever.  A  great  number  of  various  readings  may  be  at  once 
set  aside  as  utterly  insignificant,  on  the  ground  of  their  wanting 
one  or  other  of  these  requisites.  Either  the  sense  of  the  passage 
is  not  really  or  sensibly  changed  by  substituting  the  one  for  the 
other,  or  else  the  one  has  a  clear  and  decided  preponderance  of 
evidence  in  its  favour.  Such  various  readings  need  not  give  us 
any  anxiety  or  concern.  They  do  not  affect  in  any  degree  the 
standard  of  our  faith  and  practice.  They  do  not  impair  the 
purity  or  integrity  of  the  sacred  text.  By  those  two  processes — 
first,  of  distinguishing  between  various  readings  properly  so  called, 
and  mere  errata ;  and  second,  of  putting  aside  all  those  various 
readings  which  do  not  sensibly  affect  the  sense,  or  which  are  not 
based  upon  critical  evidence  sufficient  to  occasion  any  serious 
doubt  as  to  their  right  to  a  place  in  the  text ;  the  number  of 
various  readings  is  reduced  to  very  few  indeed.  And  in  regard  to 
the  few  that  remain,  for  they  are  but  few,  we  have  abundant 
grounds  for  maintaining  this  proposition^  that  whichever  reading 
may  be  adopted,  there  is  not  one  point  of  faith  or  practice,  not 
one  doctrine  or  precept  of  Scripture,  that  would  be  materially 
affected.  There  is  no  various  reading  resting  upon  anything  like 


542 


FORTY-FOUllTH  LFGTUF.E. 


plausible  evidence,  the  adoption  of  which  would  lay  upon  men 
an  obligation  to  believe  or  do  anything  which,  were  it  not  adopted, 
would  not  be  obligatory;  and  there  is  no  doctrine  or  precept  seem¬ 
ing  to  be  taught  in  Scripture,  from  the  obligation  of  which  any 
various  reading  that  has  respectable  critical  evidence  to  support  it, 
would  exempt  us.  Some  of  the  chief  of  the  various  readings  which 
affect  the  sense,  and  in  regard  to  which  there  is  some  fair  ground 
for  doubting  which  reading  ought  to  be  received  into  the  text,  are 
connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And  we  may  briefly 
refer  to  them  as  not  only  not  contradicting,  but  decidedly  con¬ 
firming  the  important  practical  position  just  stated.  In  adverting 
in  last  lecture  to  1  John  v.  7,  or  what  is  commonly  called  the 
three  heavenly  witnesses,  we  said  that  there  was  a  decided  pre¬ 
ponderance  of  critical  evidence  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
verse,  and  that  therefore  it  ought  to  be  held  that  it  did  not 
originally  form  a  part  of  the  sacred  text.  There  are  two  passages 
bearing  upon  this  subject,  at  least  upon  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour, 
in  which  the  Socinians  have  laboured  to  shew  that  a  different 
reading  from  that  which  is  found  in  the  common  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament  ought  to  be  adopted.  They  are  Acts  xx.  28, 
and  1  Timothy  hi.  16.  In  regard  to  the  first,  the  question  is, 
whether  the  text  should  read  as  it  is  in  our  version,  and  in  the 
common  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  “  To  feed  the  church 
of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood,”  or  to  feed 
the  church  of  the  Lord,  i.e.  whether  ©sou  or  Ku^/ou  should  stand  in 
the  text  in  the  original.  There  are  other  slight  variations  in  the 
reading  suggested  by  some  MSS.,  but  they  are  not  supported  by 
much  evidence,  and  my  present  object  does  not  require  me  to 
advert  to  them.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  there  is 
fair  ground  for  an  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  ©sou 
or  Kv^/ou  should  stand  here  as  part  of  the  original  text,  and  that 
no  man,  whatever  opinion  he  may  form  as  to  the  side  on  which 
the  evidence  preponderates,  is  entitled  to  speak  very  dogmatically 
upon  the  subject.  All  the  enemies  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
contend  that  the  genuine  reading  is  Kus/ou,  and  not  ©sou ;  and  some 
friends  of  the  doctrine  have  thought  that  the  preponderance  of 
critical  evidence  is  in  favour  of  that  readinsf. 

But  the  only  point  to  which  we  wish  at  present  to  point  your 
attention  is,  that  even  if  Ku^/ou  were  admitted  to  be  the  genuine 


VARIOUS  RE  A  Dims. 


543 


reading,  tlie  whole  practical  result  would  be  that  one  of  the  passages 
where  the  word  ©£o$  is  applied  to  Christ  would  be  withdrawn  from 
the  Scripture  proofs  of  his  divinity,  while  there  would  still  remain 
abundant  proof  in  many  other  passages  that  he  was  God  over  all 
blessed  for  evermore.  In  like  manner,  in  regard  to  the  passage  in 
the  third  chapter  of  First  Timothy,  there  are  three  different  read¬ 
ings  proposed,  all  of  which  have  some  critical  authority  to  support 
them.  It  stands  in  what  is  commonly  called  the  textus  receptiis 
0£og  s(potvsPu^7]  h  and  in  our  version,  God  was  manifest  in 

the  flesh.  There  is  some  critical  authority  for  reading  instead  of 
Qsog  the  masculine  pronoun  oc,  and  there  is  also  some  for  reading  o  in 
the  neuter.  Socinians  of  course  all  reject  &sog,  and  read  6g  or  o.  We 
think  there  is  a  more  decided  preponderance  of  critical  evidence 
in  favour  of  0scg  in  this  passage  than  can  be  alleged  in  favour  of 
©sou  in  the  20th  of  the  Acts,  and  it  has  also  been  plausibly  con¬ 
tended  that  even  with  the  other  readings  6g  or  6  a  testimony  may 
be  brought  out  of  this  passage  in  favour  of  our  Saviour’s  divinity. 
Bat  what  we  call  upon  you  at  present  to  notice  is  this,  that  even  if 
the  reading  ©sog  should  be  rejected,  and  if  it  should  farther  be 
admitted  that  the  rejection  of  ©sog  deprives  this  passage  of  all  force 
as  a  proof  of  our  Lord’s  divinity,  that  great  doctrine  wnuld  still 
stand  untouched,  fully  established  by  many  passages  of  Scripture 
where  there  is  no  various  reading  which  has  any  plausible  evidence 
to  support  it,  and  where  there  can  be  but  one  interpretation  fairly 
put  upon  the  words.  In  consequence  of  the  strong  grounds  which 
they  are  able  to  adduce  in  favour  of  the  spuriousness  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses,  and  the  plausible  though  insufficient  grounds 
they  can  bring  forward  for  the  exclusion  of  ©sog  from  these  two 
passages,  Socinians  have  generally  been  much  disposed  to  dabble 
in  various  readings,,  and  to  boast  of  the  advantage  which  their 
cause  gains  from  the  adoption  of  a  purer  text  than  the  textus 
reccptus.  But  though  we  were  to  concede  to  them  all  that  they 
demand  in  this  matter — or  rather  were  we  to  adopt  all  the  changes 
they  propose,  which  have  plausible  though  insufficient  evidence 
in  their  favour,  for  they  have  proposed  various  readings  in  some  of 
the  proof  passages  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  which  have  not  even 
plausible  critical  evidence  to  support  them-^nothing  whatever 
would  be  done  in  the  way  of  disproving  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
and  though  one  or  two  of  the  proof  passages  might  be  taken  away, 


644 


FORTY-FOURTH  LEG  TURF. 


there  would  still  remain  abundant  scriptural  proof  that  the  apostle 
and  high  priest  of  our  profession  is  a  partaker  of  the  divine  nature, 
and  equal  to  the  Father  in  power  and  glory.  The  Socinians  boast 
much  of  the  concurrence  of  Griesbach,  not  only  in  the  omission  of 
the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  but  also  in  the  substitution  of  Kv^iog 
and  6g  for  Qseg  in  the  two  passages  to  which  we  have  now  adverted  ; 
and  it  may  be  proper  in  passing  to  mention  with  reference  to  this 
point — first,  that  Scholz,  the  latest  editor  of  a  critical  edition  of 
the  New  Testament,  who  collected  a  considerable  amount  of  critical 
apparatus  beyond  what  Griesbach  possessed,  has  retained  in 
both  these  passages  as  best  supported  by  critical  evidence ;  second, 
that  it  has  been  proved  by  Dr  Lawrence,  the  late  Archbishop  of 
Cashel,  in  his  Remarks  on  Griesbach’ s  Systematical  Glassification 
of  MSS.,  that  in  rejecting  @sog  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16  Griesbach  has  not 
accurately  followed  out  and  applied  even  his  own  critical  principles 
and  rules  ;  and  third,  what  brings  us  back  to  the  point  from  which 
we  have  referred  to  this  subject,  that  Griesbach  has  solemnly 
declared  that  notwithstanding  his  adopting  what  may  be  called 
the  Socinian  reading  of  these  passages,  he  firmly  believed  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  established  by  conclusive 
scriptural  testimony.^ 

We  have  referred  to  this  matter  simply  as  an  illustration  of  the 
general  position  that  there  are  no  various  readings  resting  upon 
anything  like  fair  or  plausible  critical  evidence,  which,  whatever 
decision  might  be  adopted  regarding  them,  would  change  any  one 
doctrine  or  precept  of  Scripture.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has 
been  supposed  to  be  more  involved  in  this  question  of  various 
readings  than  any  other,  and  yet  you  see  that  the  adoption  of  all 
the  Socinian  readings,  as  they  may  be  called,  which  have  any 
plausible  evidence  to  rest  upon,  would  leave  the  main  foundations 
of  that  great  doctrine  untouched, 

If  these  general  observations  upon  the  question  of  various  read¬ 
ings  are  well  founded,  they  prove  that  this  whole  subject,  so  far  as 

^  “  Quare  ut  iniquas  siispiciones  omnes,  quantum  in  me  est,  amoliar,  et  liominibus 
malevolis  calumniandi  ansam  preeripiam,  primum  publice  profiteer  atque  Deum 
tester  neutiquam  me  de  veritate  istius  dogmatis  dubitare.  Atque  sunt  profecto 
turn  multa  et  lucillenta  argumenta  et  Scriptura3  loca  quibus  vera  Deltas  Cbristi 
vindicatur,  ut  ego  quidem  intelligere  vix  possim  quomodo,  concessa  Scriptura3 
sacne  Divina  auetoritate,  et  admissis  justis  interpretandi  regulis,  dogma  hoc  in 
dubium  a  quopiam  vocari  possit  ”  (Lawrence’s  Bernarhs,  p.  384). 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 


545 


it  affects,  or  is  suiDposed  to  affect,  the  general  purity  or  integrity 
of  the  sacred  text,  the  fitness  of  the  Bible  as  it  has  come  down  to 
us  to  convey  to  us  accurately  and  certainly  the  whole  counsel  of 
God,  is  destitute  of  any  real  practical  importance. 

At  the  same  time  it  should  be  remarked  that  the  investigation 
of  the  true  and  correct  text  of  Scripture  is  a  branch  of  theological 
study  that  should  not  be  altogether  neglected.  It  is  right  that  all 
ministers  should  know  something  of  the  grounds  on  which  the 
accuracy  of  the  received  text  of  Scripture  rests,  of  the  evidence 
that  bears  upon  the  settlement  of  the  true  reading  in  some  of  the 
most  important  passages  where  it  has  been  a  subject  of  contro¬ 
versial  discussion,  and  generally  of  the  principles  and  rules  appli¬ 
cable  to  this  matter.  This  subject  has  been  very  fully  cultivated 
for  the  last  seventy  or  eighty  years,  especially  in  Germany,  and 
has  been  held  forth  very  much  in  the  aspect  of  an  independent 
and  important  science,  under  the  name  of  biblical  criticism.  For 
criticism  in  the  modern  restricted  use  of  the  word  does  not  include 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  or  the  investigation  of  the  sense 
and  meaning  of  its  statements  ;  (that  is  called  hermeneutics  or 
exegesis),  but  merely  the  settlement  of  the  text,  the  decision  of  all 
questions  about  the  reading  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  sacred 
text  as  nearly  as  possible  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  original 
authors.  The  practical  importance  of  biblical  criticism  in  this 
restricted  sense  has  been  greatly  overrated.^  Still  it  is  undoubtedly 
the  duty  of  every  one  who  aspires  to  be  an  instructer  of  others  to 
attain  to  as  much  knowledge  and  certainty  as  his  circumstances 
fairly  admit  of,  in  regard  to  what  really  is  the  word  of  God,  as  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  its  inspired  authors,  and  to  be  able  to  give 
some  account,  when  called  upon,  of  the  grounds  on  which  his 
belief  and  practice  in  this  respect  rest.  The  general  acquaintance 
with  the  materials  of  evidence,  with  the  right  modes  of  using  and 
applying  them,  and  with  the  results  to  which  they  lead,  that  may 
be  necessary  for  securing  these  ends,  it  is  certainly  incumbent 
upon  you  to  possess.  The  materials  for  determining  upon  what  is 
the  true  and  real  text  of  Scripture  are,  as  we  formerly  explained, 
MSS.,  ancient  versions,  and  quotations  from  Scripture  in  ancient 
writers,  and  declarations  or  indications  by  them  as  to  what  existed 
^  See  Marsh’s  Lectures.,  part  ii.  lect.  i.  pp.  264,  265. 


546 


FORTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


in  the  MSS.  then  in  use.  The  MSS.  that  have  come  down  to  us 
are  the  most  direct  and  important  source  of  evidence.  And  the 
others  are  valuable,  mainly,  if  not  solely,  in  so  far  as  they  afford 
proofs  or  presumptions  of  what  was  found  in  some  MSS.  at  the 
time  they  were  made.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  it  is  necessary  that  you 
acquire  some  knowledge  of  the  MSS.  and  ancient  versions,  and  it 
is  the  more  important  to  acquire  some  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
versions  as  they  afford  assistance,  not  only  in  criticism  or  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  text,  but  also  in  the  much  more  important  work  of 
interpretation,  or  the  investigation  of  its  meaning.  All  the  MSS. 
which  have  been  discovered  have  been  carefully  examined,  and 
much  learned  investigation  has  been  directed  to  the  object  of 
ascertaining  their  age,  and  other  circumstances  which  may  affect 
their  value  as  witnesses.  With  the  leading  results  of  these  investi¬ 
gations  you  ought  to  possess  some  acquaintance.  You  will  soon 
find  that  it  is  not  the  age  of  a  MS.  alone  that  is  considered  to 
affect  the  question,  whether  it  contain  upon  the  whole  a  correct 
text,  or  is  to  be  regarded  as  of  much  weight  in  determining  the 
authority  of  various  readings,  but  that  other  tests  have  been 
applied  to  judge  of  the  authority  and  value  of  different  MSS. 
Elaborate  and  ingenious  attempts  have  been  made  to  classify  the 
existing  MSS.,  i.e.  to  trace  them  to  certain  general  sources,  and 
rank  them  all  under  a  few  heads.  These  different  classes  of  MSS. 
are  commonly  called  recensions,  a  word  corresponding  nearly  with 
our  word  edition,  or  rather  familv.  Griesbach  was  the  first  who 
proposed  a  formal  classification  of  the  existing  MSS.  On  taking  a 
comprehensive  survey  of  the  whole  materials  bearing  upon  the 
settlement  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  he  thought  he  dis¬ 
covered  traces  of  the  existence  in  early  times  of  three  recensions  or 
editions,  agreeing  of  course  in  substance  in  the  text  which  they 
exhibited,  but  varying  somewhat  from  each  other  in  the  particular 
readings  they  presented.  These  he  named  the  Alexandrine 
recension,  the  Occidental,  and  the  Constantinopolitan,  and  he 
ranked  them  in  point  of  accuracy  in  the  order  in  which  they  have 
now  been  mentioned.  He  then  laboured  to  reduce  all  the  different 
MSS.  and  ancient  versions  under  one  or  other  of  these  three  recen¬ 
sions  or  families,  and  then  proposed  to  apply  them  in  the  way  of 
settling  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  and  determining  upon 
the  various  readings,  not  individually,  but  collectively,  i.e.  for 


CLASSIFICATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 


547 


instance,  to  prefer  a  reading  which  had  the  support  of  two  of  these 
recensions  to  a  reading  which  was  supported  only  by  one  of  them, 
whatever  might  be  the  number  of  individual  MSS.  by  which  the 
different  readings  might  be  respectively  countenanced.  It  was 
upon  this  principle  that  he  prepared  his  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  the  publication  of  which  forms  an  important  era  in 
the  history  of  biblical  criticism,  and  which  ought  to  be  possessed 
and  examined  by  all  who  wish  to  investigate  thoroughly  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament.  Subsequent  authors  have  generally 
adopted  Griesbach’s  leading  idea  of  a  classification  of  MSS.  under 
different  recensions  or  families,  but  have  differed  considerably 
from  him  and  among  themselves  as  to  what  recensions  or  families 
have  existed,  and  can  still  be  traced  out,  and  as  to  the  value  that 
ought  to  be  attached  to  their  testimony.  This  subject  is  evidently 
one  of  a  very  intricate  kind,  and  the  materials  for  settling  anything 
concerning  it  are  very  vague  and  uncertain.  The  general  impres¬ 
sion  among  competent  judges  is,  that  nothing  very  certain  or 
definite  has  yet  been  attained  in  regard  to  this  matter.  Professor 
Moses  Stuart,  in  his  notes  to  the  American  translation  of  Hug  s 
Introduction,  says,  “  On  this  subject  (the  classification  of  MSS.) 
the  reader  should  be  apprised  that  discussion  is  by  no  means  at 
an  end,  and  that  after  all  the  ingenuity,  labour,  and  learning 
that  have  been  exhibited,  no  real  terra  firma  on  which  we  can 
plant  our  feet  has  yet  been  taken  possession  of,  or  even  fully  dis¬ 
covered.” 

We  must  still  then,  in  the  meantime,  continue  in  our  investiga¬ 
tion  of  this  subject  to  form  the  best  estimate  we  can  of  the  value 
or  authority  of  different  MSS.  and  versions  individually,  and  of 
the  influence  they  ought  to  have  in  determining  the  true  state  of 
the  text,  and  in  deciding  upon  the  various  readings ;  and  various 
rules  have  been  laid  down  by  different  authors  for  regulating  our 
procedure  in  this  matter  Avithout  any  regard  to  an  attempted 
classification.  From  the  vast  amount  of  labour  and  learning  which 
have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  history  of  MSS.  individually, 
and  the  classification  of  them  collectively,  professedly  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  authentic  materials  for  the  formation  of  a 
pure  and  correct  text,  you  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  very 
important  results  depended  upon  the  decision  of  these  questions. 
This,  however,  is  a  mistake.  Notwithstanding  all  the  labour  that 
has  been  expended  in  collecting  and  collating  MSS.,  in  classifying 


548 


FORTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


them  and  estimating  their  value,  and  in  laying  down  rules  to 
regulate  the  application  of  them,  the  fact  undoubtedly  is,  that  all 
the  MSS.  which  have  come  down  to  us  exhibit  a  text  of  which 
purity  and  integrity  may  be  fairly  predicated,  and  set  before  us 
plainly  and  unequivocally  all  the  doctrines  and  duties  which  from 
any  source,  or  upon  any  ground,  w'e  have  reason  to  believe  that 
God  embodied  in  his  word.  No  minister  ought  to  be  so  ignorant 
as  to  be  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  another  in  regard  to  anything 
that  bears  even  remotely  and  partially  upon  the  great  object  of 
knowing  and  ascertaining  exactly  what  God  has  revealed,  and 
therefore  every  minister  ought  to  know  something  of  the  materials 
for  settling  the  text  and  deciding  upon  various  readings,  and  of 
the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  have  been  and  should  be 
applied.  There  is  one  department  of  this  subject  which  is  usually 
discussed  under  the  head  of  the  history  of  the  text,  and  with 
which  you  ought  to  possess  some  acquaintance.  It  may  be  said 
to  be  occupied  practically  with  the  investigation  of  these  ques¬ 
tions,  what  is  the  origin  and  what  is  the  value  of  that  text  of  the 
Greek  Testament  which  has  been  in  most  general  use  since  the 
invention  of  printing,  and  from  which  most  of  the  translations  of 
the  New  Testament  into  modern  languages  have  been  made,  and 
whether  there  be  any  other  text  which  is  upon  the  whole  prefer¬ 
able  to  it.  The  investigation  of  this  subject  has  produced  much 
interesting  information  as  to  the  sources  from  which  the  first 
printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  were  derived,  the  number 
and  value  of  the  MSS.  so  far  as  they  can  be  ascertained,  which 
■were  employed  by  the  original  editors,  the  different  editions 
professing  to  rest  upon  critical  foundations,  which  have  since  been 
published,  the  additional  light  that  has  been  cast  upon  the  state 
of  the  text,  and  the  decision  of  the  litigated  questions  about 
particular  various  readings  applied,  with  the  view  of  settling  as 
the  practical  result  of  all,  what  is  upon  the  whole  the  best  and 
purest  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  that  is  now  accessible.  The 
text  that  long  prevailed  in  Europe,  and  from  w^hich  most  of  the 
existing  translations  were  made,  commonly  known  as  the  textus 
receptus,  is  based  chiefly  upon  editions  published  by  Stephens  and 
Beza  from  MSS.,  and  very  closely  resembling  each  other.  This 
continued  to  be  in  general  use,  though  the  correctness  of  some  of  its 
readings  had  been  doubted  and  questioned,  till  the  publication  of 
Griesbach’s  New  Testament,  of  which,  in  the  second  or  complete 


TEXTU^  RECEFTUS. 


549 


edition  of  it,  the  first  volume  was  published  in  1796  and  the 
second  in  1806.  Griesbach  laboured  to  shew  that  the  textus 
receptus  had  been  derived  from  a  very  small  number  of  MSS.,  and 
these  of  no  great  antiquity  or  value,  and  that  now  there  were 
materials  for  producing  a  decidedly  purer  and  more  correct  text. 
Most  of  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  which  have  since 
been  published  in  this  country  or  upon  the  Continent  have  been 
based  mainly  upon  Griesbach’s,  or  at  least  have  in  some  form  or 
other  exhibited  the  principal  of  his  various  readings.  Most  of 
those  who  have  examined  this  subject  with  attention  have  been  of 
opinion  that,  upon  the  whole,  Griesbach’s  text  is  more  pure  and 
correct,  approaches  nearer  to  the  original  text  of  the  inspired 
authors  than  the  textus  receptus,  and  I  am  disposed  to  think  that 
this  opinion  is  correct.  At  the  same  time  I  do  not  know  anything 
which  is  better  fitted  to  give  a  distinct  and  vivid  impression  of 
the  substantial  identity  of  all  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  of  the 
extremely  narrow  range  within  which  the  investigation  of  the 
various  readings  from  the  application  of  all  existing  materials  lies, 
and  of  the  insignificance  of  the  results  which  have  been  derived 
from  the  researches  of  critics  as  distinguished  from  interpreters, 
than  just  to  run  the  eye  over  the  inner  margin  of  Griesbach’s  New 
Testament.  There  you  have  at  one  view  all  the  words  and  phrases 
which  he  has  removed  from  the  textus  receptus  to  make  room  for 
his  own  emendations,  and  you  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  their 
utter  insignificance,  both  in  number  and  importance.  And  you 
will  thus  be  very  decidedly  confirmed  in  your  convictions  of  the 
purity  and  integrity  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  And 
while  it  may  be  admitted  that  upon  the  whole  and  in  general 
Griesbach’s  text  is  preferable  to  the  textus  receptus,  this  does  not 
hold  in  the  case  of  each  particular  reading  with  respect  to  which 
they  differ.  There  are  several  cases,  and  these  of  considerable 
comparative  importance,  as  for  example,  the  two  passages  to  which 
we  referred  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  lecture,  in  which  Scholz, 
the  author  of  the  latest  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
prefers,  and  apparently  upon  satisfactory  grounds,  the  reading  of 
the  textus  receptus,  and  of  our  common  version,  to  that  which 
Griesbach  has  substituted.  It  should  be  remarked  too  that  the 
opinion  of  the  superiority  of  the  text  of  Griesbach  to  the  textus 
receptus  has  not  been  universally  adopted,  and  that  an  ingenious 
and  learned  defence  of  the  received  text,  including  even  a  vindica- 


550 


FORTY-FOURTH  LECTURE. 


tion  of  the  genuineness  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses,  is  to  be 
found  in  Nolan’s  Inquiry  into  the  Integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  ; 
Prolegomena  to  Critical  Editions — Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach, 
Scholz  ;  Introductions,  especially  Michaelis,  and  2d  vol.  of  Horne, 
Franck,  and  Davidson. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  dwell  longer  upon  this  subject  of 
the  original  text  and  the  various  readings,  or  what  is  now  usually 
comprehended  under  the  designation  of  biblical  criticism,  in  its 
more  restricted  sense,  as  distinguished  from  interpretation.  We 
have  briefly  explained  to  you  the  general  nature  of  the  subject, 
the  points  to  be  attended  to  in  studying  it,  and  the  materials  to 
be  employed  in  the  investigation.  We  have  shewn  you  that  the 
subject  is  not  one  of  very  great  practical  importance,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  actual  discovery  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  from 
his  word,  while  we  have  also  adverted  to  the  reasons  which  make 
it  necessary  and  imperative  that  ministers  should  acquire  some 
knowledge  of  the  leading  points  involved  in  it.  All  the  knowledge 
that  is  necessary  upon  this  subject  can  be  easily  acquired.  It  is 
to  be  found  most  readily  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  principal 
critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  especially  Mill’s,  Wetstein’s, 
Griesbach’s,  Scholz’ s,  Lachmann’s,  and  Tischendorff’s,  and  in  the 
works  usually  called  Introductions,  especially  Michaelis’s,  Hug’s, 
and  the  second  volume  of  Horne.  Gerard’s  Institutes  of  Biblical 
Criticism  is  a  useful  book,  but  he  uses  the  word  “  criticism”  in  a 
wider  sense  than  that  in  which  it  is  now  generally  employed,  as 
comprehending  the  investigation  both  of  the  readings  and  the 
sense.  But  though  the  book  comprehends  both,  they  are  treated 
separately,  as  he  is  careful  to  distinguish  between  what  he  calls 
(p.  237)  corrective  or  emendatory  criticism,  which  is  employed  in 
determining  the  genuine  reading,  and  explanatory  or  interpretative 
criticism,  employed  in  discovering  the  true  sense.  There  is  a  very 
able  and  interesting  view  of  the  history  and  literature  of  this  sub¬ 
ject  in  the  first  part  of  Bishop  Marsh’s  Lectures  upon  the  Criticism 
and  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  And  perhaps  a  larger 
amount  of  useful  information  upon  this  whole  subject  than  could 
be  found  in  any  single  book,  including  also  notices  of  the  most 
recent  discussions  upon  these  topics  on  the  Continent,  and  of  all 
the  principal  works  necessary  for  the  investigation  of  them,  is  con¬ 
tained  in  Dr  Davidson’s  Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism? 

‘  Edinburgh  :  Clark.  1839. 


LECTURE  XLV. 


NATUKE,  DIFFICULTIES,  AND  NECESSITY  OF  SEARCHING 

THE  SCRIPTURES. 


A  FTER  having  ascertained  that  the  written  word  contained  in 
the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is 
all  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  that  this  rule  is  to  be  found  in  purity  and  integrity 
in  the  books  of  Scripture  as  we  have  them  in  the  original  lan¬ 
guages,  we  now  proceed  to  consider  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
the  meaning  of  these  books,  which  are  the  only  revelation  of  God  s 
will  to  men,  may  be  known  and  established.  This  forms  the 
subject  of  what  is  commonly  called  exegetical  theology  or  hermen¬ 
eutics,  and  it  is  a  department  of  fundamental  importance,  inas¬ 
much  as  the  correct  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  basis  of  all 
sound  theological  knowledge.  I  can  only  give  you  a  brief  notice 
of  the  leading  general  considerations  that  ought  to  be  kept  in  view 
in  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  order  that  you  may  be 
preserved  from  error,  and  guided  into  a  right  knowledge  of  their 
meaning.  And  it  will  be  proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  attend  to 
the  true  nature  and  character  of  the  object  to  be  aimed  at.  The 
general  object  aimed  at  is  just  to  ascertain  and  to  bring  out  the 
true  and  correct  meaning  of  every  statement  contained  in  the 
sacred  Scriptures;  in  other  words,  so  to  use  them  as  that  they 
may  really  serve  to  us  the  purpose  which  they  were  intended  to 
accomplish,  by  conveying  to  us  fully  and  accurately,  because  we 
interpret  them  aright,  the  mind  and  will  of  God  as  to  everything 
that  we  are  to  believe  and  to  do.  The  importance  of  this  object  is 
abundantly  evident,  and  the  great  variety  of  interpretations  put 
upon  the  statements  of  Scripture,  even  in  matters  of  importance, 
would  seem  to  shew  that  in  some  sense  and  in  some  respects  it  is 


552 


FORTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


not  altogether  free  from  difficulty.  It  is  a  great  Protestant  prin¬ 
ciple  to  maintain  in  opposition  to  Eomanists.  We  have  already 
had  occasion  to  bring  before  you  the  evidence  of  the  perspicuity  of 
Scripture  in  all  necessary  things.  But  even  in  necessary  things  all 
who  profess  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  a  divine  revelation  are  far 
from  being  of  one  mind ;  in  other  words,  they  put  different  interpre¬ 
tations  upon  scriptural  statements.  The  Socinians,  for  example, 
cannot  find  in  Scripture  any  statements  which  declare  or  imply 
the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  or  atonement  of  Christ,  and  interpret 
differently,  or  assign  a  different  meaning  to  those  passages  which 
the  orthodox  churches  of  Christ  regard  as  plainly  teaching  these 
fundamental  truths.  This  we  do  not  regard  as  affording  any 
evidence  of  the  obscurity  of  Scripture  in  these  matters,  for  we 
cannot  but  believe,  notwithstanding  the  Socinian  denial  of  them, 
that  they  are  clearly  revealed ;  and  we  think  the  Socinians  give 
very  clear  indications  of  a  decided  aversion  to  these  truths — of  a 
determination  practically  to  judge  of  them  by  another  standard, 
and  to  refuse  to  receive  them,  however  clearly  they  might  be 
stated.  It  is  no  doubt  true  however  that  obscurity  does  attach  to 
the  Scriptures,  and  that  while  they  are  clear  in  all  necessary  or 
fundamental  points,  both  of  doctrine  and  duty,  there  are  many 
passages  in  them  the  precise  meaning  of  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
discover,  and  some  the  true  meaning  of  which  may  not  after  all  our 
investigations  be  very  thoroughly  settled,  so  that  we  can  be  very 
confident  that  we  have  attained  it.  All  this  is  certainly  true,  and  it 
ought  to  be  clearly  seen  and  explicitly  admitted.  It  illustrates  at 
once  the  importance  and  the  difficulty  of  this  subject.  The  general 
object  of  hermeneutics  is  to  point  out  the  ways  and  the  means  by 
which  we  may  attain  to  the  most  accurate,  the  most  extensive,  and 
the  most  certain  knowledge  of  the  whole  statements  contained  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  the  imperative  duty  of  every  one  to 
whom  God  has  communicated  a  written  revelation  of  his  will  to 
acquire  as  full  and  accurate  a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  all  its 
statements  as  his  means  and  opportunities  admit  of.  And  this 
duty  is  of  course  peculiarly  obligatory  upon  all  who  aspire  to  be 
the  religious  instructors  of  others.  So  long  as  there  are  statements 
in  God’s  word,  the  meaning  of  which  we  do  not  fully  comprehend,  it 
is  our  duty  to  continue  to  investigate  it ;  and  even  after  we  may 
think  that  we  have  correctly  apprehended  the  meaning  of  its 


IGNORANCE  OF  EClUPTURE. 


553 


statements,  we  will  still  find  abundant  scope  for  tracing  their  har¬ 
monies  and  developing  their  full  import  and  applications.  We 
fear  that  a  much  greater  ignorance  of  the  true  meaning  of  scrip¬ 
tural  statements  prevails  than  is  commonly  supposed,  and  we  are 
persuaded  that  the  attainment  of  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  precise 
meaning  of  God’s  word  is  more  difficult,  and  requires  a  greater 
amount  of  stud}^  and  labour  than  is  usually  imagined.  We  do  not 
refer  of  course  to  those  portions  of  Scripture  which  more  directly 
and  immediately  set  forth  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  duties 
which  it  was  the  great  leading  object  of  God’s  word  to  teach,  any¬ 
thing  wdiich  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  which  is  therefore 
certainly  known  by  all,  however  humble  and  scanty  in  other 
respects  their  attainments,  who  enjoy  the  illuminating  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  have  been  led  by  him  into  the  w^ay  of  life. 
But  beyond  these  things  in  Scripture,  which  are  clearly  revealed 
because  necessary  for  salvation,  and  many  other  matters  of  a 
historical  and  biographical  kind,  which  are  quite  clear,  though  the 
knowledge  of  them  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  there  are  many 
statements  in  Scripture  not  so  clear  as  those  contained  in  these 
two  classes  of  passages,  about  the  true  meaning  of  which  men  are 
much  more  ignorant  than  they  themselves  suppose. 

We  acquire  generally  a  considerable  familiarity  with  the  words 
of  Scripture,  and  this  too  often  serves  as  a  substitute  for  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  their  meaning.  We  think  that  we  know  the  meaning  of 
a  passage  because  we  have  acquired  an  inveterate  familiarity  with 
the  words  in  which  it  is  expressed,  while  we  have  never  bestowed 
upon  it  that  degree  of  attention  and  examination,  of  reflection  or 
meditation,  which  is  necessary  to  enable  us  to  form  a  distinct  con¬ 
ception  of  its  import.  We  fear  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  men 
to  read  the  Scriptures  without  being  at  much  pains  to  understand 
them,  resting  satisfied  with  very  obscure  and  misty  conceptions  of 
the  meaning  of  their  statements ;  this  want  of  clear  and  definite 
views  of  their  import  being  concealed  even  from  themselves  by 
their  familiarity  with  their  sound.  The  only  way  by  which  men’s 
ignorance  of  the  real  meaning  of  many  scriptural  statements,  their 
want  of  clear  and  definite  conceptions  of  their  import,  is  likely 
to  be  tested  and  discovered,  is  by  their  attempting  to  embody  in 
words  of  their  own  the  views  they  may  entertain  of  particular 
passages.  This  process,  steadily  and  faithfully  pursued,  would,  we 
believe,  open  up  to  men  an  amount  of  real  ignorance  of  the 


554 


FORTY-FIFTH  LECTURE, 


meaning  of  scriptural  statements,  or  a  want  of  clear  and  definite 
ideas  as  to  their  import,  of  which  they  were  previously  little  aware. 
It  is  a  very  common  thing  even  for  ministers,  when  they  are  called 
upon  in  the  discharge  of  their  public  duties,  to  open  up  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  scriptural  statements,  and  begin  to  embody  their  views 
in  words,  to  find  that  they  had  no  such  knowledge  of  the  meaning 
of  the  particular  passage  to  which  their  attention  may  have  been 
directed,  as  from  their  familiarity  with  the  words  in  which  it  is 
expressed,  they  had  been  led  to  suppose  ;  and  to  discover  that  some 
research  and  reflection  are  necessary  before  they  get  a  clear  and 
definite  idea  of  its  import,  and  are  able  to  bring  out  its  meaning 
clearly  and  precisely  for  the  instruction  and  edification  of  others. 
An  incident  illustrative  of  this  once  occurred  to  me,  which  I  may 
mention,  because  I  think  it  fitted  to  be  useful,  though  it  certainly 
affords  no  materials  for  self-complacency.  Being  called  upon  to 
preach  a  sermon  for  a  particular  occasion,  I  selected  a  text  which, 
from  the  sound  of  it,  seemed  to  be  suitable.  I  then  proceeded  to 
investigate  more  carefully  the  precise  meaning  of  the  text,  and 
became  convinced  that  its  import  was  not  what  I  had  supposed  it 
to  be ;  that  in  its  true  and  proper  meaning  as  it  stood  in  the 
Bible,  it  was  not  suitable  to  the  occasion,  and  could  not  be  applied 
to  it  without  straining  or  perversion,  and  accordingly  I  laid  it 
aside  and  selected  another.  But  what  makes  the  case  somewliat 
more  remarkable  is,  that  several  years  afterwards,  upon  a  similar 
occasion,  I  again  thought  of  this  same  text.  I  had  quite  forgotten 
my  former  investigation  of  its  meaning,  and  the  result  of  it.  I 
commenced  the  investigation  anew,  and  very  soon  came  to  the  same 
conclusion  as  before,  and  again  laid  it  aside.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
incidents  of  a  similar  kind  have  occurred  in  the  experience  of 
many  ministers,  and  they  are  well  fitted  to  illustrate  the  position 
which  I  am  anxious  to  enforce  upon  you,  that  there  prevails  a 
great  deal  of  discreditable  ignorance  of  the  precise  meaning  of  the 
statements  of  God’s  word,  and  a  great  proneness  to  rest  contented 
with  very  obscure  and  defective  notions  of  their  real  import.  If  I 
had  been  able  to  give  as  much  time  as  I  at  one  time  expected  to 
the  subject  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  I  would  have  made 
it  an  object  to  have  convinced  you  by  actual  experiment  that  there 
are  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  you  imagine  that 
you  understand,  because  you  are  familiar  with  the  words  in  which 
they  are  expressed,  to  which  yet  you  attach  no  very  distinct  and 


INDEFINITE  CONCEPTIONS. 


555 


definite  meaning,  and  the  import  of  which  you  could  not  very  well 
explain  if  called  upon  to  do  so,  without  taking  some  time  for 
investigation  and  reflection.  But  you  can  make  the  experiment 
yourselves,  and  I  would  strongly  urge  you  to  do  so,  i.e.  to  select 
some  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  and  then  to  state  in  words 
to  yourselves,  or  to  one  another,  the  meaning  you  attach  to  them, 
and  to  explain  distinctly  the  way  in  which  they  are  connected  with 
the  preceding  and  succeeding  contexts.  By  this  process  yon  would 
first  of  all  be  convinced  that  you  understand  less  of  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  than  you  had  supposed ;  and  then  second,  you  would 
gain  much  of  the  knowledge  which  you  previously  wanted ;  you 
would  both  be  convinced  of  your  ignorance,  and  you  would  also  to 
a  large  extent  have  this  ignorance  removed.  If  so  much  ignorance 
of  the  true  and  exact  meaning  of  Scripture  prevail,  if  such  vague 
and  indefinite  conceptions  often  obtain  in  regard  to  their  meaning 
and  import,  it  must  be  either  because  far  too  little  attention  is 
given  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  or  because  there  are  great 
difficulties  in  the  w^ay  of  clearly  and  precisely  ascertaining  their 
meaning,  or  because  both  these  statements  are  true.  That  far  too 
little  attention  is  given  to  the  careful  and  exact  study  of  the 
Scriptures  is  very  manifest,  and  it  is  also  true,  in  a  certain  sense, 
and  with  some  limitations,  that  there  are  considerable  difficulties 
to  be  overcome  in  attaining  to  definite  and  accurate  conceptions 
of  the  import  of  many  of  their  statements.  Just  reflect  upon 
what  is  fairly  implied  in  searching  the  Scriptures — a  duty  expressly 
enjoined  by  our  Saviour,  and  therefore  imperatively  incumbent 
upon  all  who  have  the  word  of  God  in  their  hands — and  view  it 
even  abstracted  from  any  difficulties  connected  with  the  languages 
in  which  they  are  written.  What  does  this  duty  of  searching  the 
Scriptures  involve,  even  in  regard  to  those  who  can  read  them  only 
in  a  translation  ?  All  this  study  and  attention  are  necessary  even 
to  understand  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  in  our  own  language. 
And  although  reading  and  studying  the  Scriptures  in  the  original 
affords  some  important  facilities  for  understanding  them,  which  no 
translation  can  fully  supply  to  those  who  are  fully  competent  to 
use  the  original  aright,  yet  this  advantage  can  be  secured  only  by 
much  previous  labour  and  exertion.  There  are  difficulties  con¬ 
nected  with  the  interpretation  of  all  ancient  books  written  in 
languages  which  are  now  no  longer  in  general  use,  and  have  refer¬ 
ence  to  topics  with  some  of  which  we  are  but  imperfectly  acquainted  ; 


556 


FORTY-FIFTH  LECTURE. 


and  these  difficulties  attach  to  the  study  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as 
to  other  books  which  are  in  these  respects  similar.  It  is  to  a  large 
extent  true  that  the  Bible  must  be  studied,  and  its  meaning  must 
be  ascertained,  in  substantially  the  same  way  as  other  books. 

There  are  indeed  most  important  peculiarities  attaching  to  the 
Bible,  which  should  affect  not  merely  the  Spirit  in  which  we  study 
it,  and  the  application  we  make  of  its  meaning  when  ascertained, 
but  even  in  some  respects  the  mode  of  interpreting  and  explain¬ 
ing  it,  especially  of  course  the  necessity  of  the  special  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  enable  us  to  understand  it  aright,  and  its 
entire  freedom  from  error,  as  being  all  given  by  inspiration  of 
God.  But  this  does  not  essentially  affect  the  position  that  its 
meaning  must  be  ascertained  in  substantially  the  same  way  as 
that  of  other  books.  The  Holy  Spirit  makes  known  to  us  nothing 
but  what  is  actually  contained  in  and  fairly  deducible  from  the 
words  of  Scripture  correctly  and  critically  understood.  And  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  the  certainty  which  this  doctrine 
affords  that  all  their  statements  came  from  God,  should  lead  men 
to  be  utterly  unconcerned  about  anything  but  just  ascertaining 
their  true  and  real  meaning,  and  make  them  at  all  times  quite 
willing  to  prosecute  the  strictest  investigation  into  their  precise 
import.  And  we  are  thus  thrown  back  upon,  and  cannot  at  all 
escape  from,  the  difficulties  attaching  to  the  interpretation  of  a 
series  of  works  such  as  in  point  of  language  and  general  character 
are  those  which  compose  the  Bible.  It  is  right  that  you  should 
be  aware  of  your  own  ignorance  of  the  precise  meaning  of  scrip¬ 
tural  statements,  of  your  want  of  clear  and  definite  conceptions  as 
to  their  import;  and  it  is  right  that  you  should  be  impressed 
with  a  sense  of  the  importance,  and  in  some  respects  the  difficulty, 
of  fully  and  accurately  understanding  their  meaning.  But  at  the 
same  time  you  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the 
perspicuity  of  Scripture  in  all  necessary  things,  as  held  by  the 
Protestant  churches  in  opposition  to  Komanists.  The  truth  is, 
that  when  we  come  to  consider  the  critical  interpretation  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  as  an  important  and  difficult  subject  of  investigation,  we 
virtually  lay  out  of  view  those  great  fundamental  truths  so  plainly 
revealed  in  Scripture,  on  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  which  men’s 
salvation  depends.  They  are  taught  so  plainly  that  he  that 
runneth  may  read.  And  yet,  plain  as  they  are,  they  are  never 
really  understood,  except  by  the  enlightening  influence  of  the 


CRITICAL  ST  CRY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


^  m 

•)0  t 


Holy  Spirit ;  while  it  is  also  true  that  on  all  whom  his  gracious 
influences  are  exerted  are  led  clearly  to  understand,  and  firmly  to 
believe  them.  The  use  and  application  of  an  accurate  knowledge 
and  a  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  so  far  as  these  great  truths 
are  concerned,  is  not  so  much  to  discover  or  to  find  them  out,  but 
rather  to  settle  accurately  what  are  the  particular  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  most  certainly  and  conclusively  establish  them, 
and  to  vindicate  the  true  meaning  of  these  passages  against  the 
misinterpretations  of  adversaries.  For  these  purposes  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  principles  of  the  critical  interpretation  of  Scripture 
is  necessary,  though  the  truths  themselves  are  clearly  seen  by 
many  who  have  no  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  hermeneutics, 
and  are  utterly  unable  to  make  any  use  of  its  resources.  But 
independently  altogether  of  what  is  necessary  to  men’s  salvation, 
and  of  the  way  in  which  this  saving  knowledge  of  necessary  things 
is  obtained,  it  is  men’s  duty  to  acquire  as  accurate  and  extensive 
a  knowledge  as  possible  of  all  that  is  contained  in  the  word  of 
God,  to  study  for  themselves,  and  to  ascertain,  as  clearly  and  as 
certainly  as  they  can,  the  true  meaning  of  many  passages,  about 
the  import  and  bearing  of  which  there  are  differences  of  opinion 
among  men  who  are  not  only  possessed  of  all  the  ordinary  natural 
and  acquired  capacities  for  understanding  the  true  meaning  of 
Scripture,  but  who  have  been  guided  by  the  Spirit  into  all  neces¬ 
sary  and  fundamental  truth.  No  man  ought  ever  to  expound 
any  portion  of  the  word  of  God  until  he  has  carefully  investigated 
its  meaning,  and  satisfied  himself  of  its  import ;  and  however  fully 
he  may  understand,  and  however  deeply  he  may  feel  and  realise  the 
great  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  however  able  he 
may  be  to  bring  much  useful  and  edifying  matter  out  of  the 
Scriptures  well  adapted  for  practical  instruction,  his  opinion  cer¬ 
tainly  will  not  be  entitled  to  much  weight,  and  he  will  be  very 
liable  to  fall  into  error  in  regard  to  the  precise  meaning  of  many 
of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  unless  he  has  given  some  consider¬ 
able  attention  to  the  critical  study  of  the  Bible,  unless  he  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  principles  and  the  materials  of  hermeneutics, 
and  has  acquired  some  skill  and  experience  in  applying  them.’ 

1  Ernesti  on  “The  Difficulty  of  Interpreting  the  New  Testament”  in  his  Opm- 
cula  Philologica  Critica. 


LECTURE  XLVI. 


AGENCY  OF  THE  SPIRIT— PRAYEE. 


WE  have  explained  to  you  the  general  nature  of  hermeneutics 
as  a  department  of  theology,  and  the  objects  to  which  it  is 
directed.  We  have  likewise  illustrated  its  necessity  and  import¬ 
ance,  as  based  not  only  upon  the  character  of  the  objects  aimed  at, 
but  upon  the  general  prevailing  ignorance  of  the  precise  and  exact 
meaning  of  scriptural  statements.  We  directed  your  attention  to 
what  may  be  in  some  sense  called  the  peculiar  position  in  this 
respect  of  those  things  in  Scripture  which  are  necessary  to  be 
known,  believed,  and  practised  for  salvation,  as  being  so  clearly 
revealed  as  scarcely  to  require  any  investigation  for  ascertaining 
their  meaning,  and  as  being  certainly  taught  by  the  Spirit  to  all 
who  enjoy  his  guidance ;  while  yet,  clearly  as  they  are  revealed, 
they  are  never  fully  understood  or  seen  in  their  true  light  until 
the  Holy  Spirit  open  men’s  eyes  and  shine  into  their  hearts.  In 
explaining  the  general  principles  of  hermeneutics,  or  of  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture,  it  is  usual  for  men  to  confine  their  attention 
simply  to  the  object  of  ascertaining  and  explaining  the  meaning 
of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  or  understanding  them  so  as  to  be 
able  to  state  their  import  correctly  in  propositions,  without  taking 
into  account  the  difference  between  a  merely  intellectual  percep¬ 
tion  of  their  import  and  that  view  or  sense  of  them  alone  deserving 
of  the  name  of  knowledge,  which  actually  produces  upon  the  heart 
and  character  of  men  the  practical  effects  which  the  word  was 
intended  to  produce,  and  the  production  of  which  is  essential  to 
their  salvation.  This  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  which  effects 
important  practical  changes  upon  men’s  characters  and  lives  is 
produced  only  by  the  effectual  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  truth. 
And  it  is  only  when  his  almighty  influence  is  exerted  that  men 
are  enabled  to  see  and  to  realise  the  great  objects  which  the  word 


AGENCY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


559 


of  God  was  intended  to  unfold.  In  so  far  as  the  knowledge  of 
the  meaning  of  God’s  word,  or  the  perception  of  divine  truth,  is 
produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  result  is  not  subject  to  human 
laws  or  rules,  and  on  this  ground  the  topic  is  not  usually  discussed 
in  books  upon  the  science  of  interpretation,  which  is  directed  to 
the  object  of  unfolding  the  principles  and  rules  by  the  observance 
and  practice  of  which  men  may  attain  to  a  correct  knowledge  of 
the  meaning  of  Scripture.  But  when  the  question  is  put  upon 
its  proper  footing,  when  it  is  stated  as  it  ought  to  be  stated.  How 
are  we  to  know  certainly  and  correctly  the  mind  and  will  of  God 
as  revealed  in  his  word  ?  then  it  is  plain  that  every  element 
which  really  bears  upon  a  full  and  comprehensive  answer  to  the 
question  ought  to  be  taken  into  account,  and  to  have  its  due 
place  and  influence  assigned  to  it ;  and  it  is  certainly  a  doctrine 
clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  that  in  order  to  men’s  acquiring  a 
real  knowledge  of  God’s  will  from  his  word,  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  necessary.  Not  only  is  it  true  that  no  man  is 
turned  from  darkness  to  light  except  by  the  special  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  no  man  without  this  is  ever  led  to  know  to  any 
practical  or  saving  result  even  the  clearest  and  most  fundamental 
truths  of  Scripture,  and  that  all  real  effective  knowledge  of  any 
portion  of  God’s  word  is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  agency ; — although 
this  is  quite  sufficient  to  establish  the  indispensable  necessity  and 
paramount  importance  of  understanding  and  recognising  his 
influence — but  also  moreover  that  on  his  enlightening  influences 
depends  our  real  and  certain  knowledge  of  any  portion  of  God’s 
word.  The  object  of  hermeneutics  is  to  point  out  in  what  way 
and  by  what  means  we  may  most  certainly  attain  to  a  correct 
knowledge  of  all  that  the  word  of  God  contains.  And  upon  the 
ground  of  the  plain  statements  of  Scripture  itself  we  are  bound  to 
regard  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  essential  element  in 
this  matter.  The  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  purely  a  matter  of 
revelation.  We  can  learn  nothing  about  it  except  from  the  word 
of  God,  and  the  ideas  which  we  entertain  and  on  which  we  act 
regarding  it  should  be  derived  wholly  from  that  source.  This  is 
not  the  time  for  entering  into  a  full  exposition  of  the  work  of  the 
spirit  in  enlightening  the  mind  and  guiding  to  the  knowledge  of 
God’s  revealed  will.  An  exposition  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  guiding  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  forms  an  important  topic 


560 


FORTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


ii)  Christian  theology,  in  the  system  of  scriptural  doctrine,  and 
ought  to  be  fully  discussed  in  its  proper  place.  And  besides,  it 
could  not  be  fully  opened  up  except  in  connection  with  an  exposi¬ 
tion  of  the  scriptural  doctrines  with  respect  to  the  native  and 
original  depravity  of  man,  and  especially  the  darkness  of  under¬ 
standing  which  needs  to  be  removed  before  any  real  and  effective 
knowledge  of  God’s  revealed  will  is  acquired.  We  have  to  do 
with  it  at  present  chiefly  as  the  basis  of  certain  practical  considera¬ 
tions  to  be  constantly  kept  in  view  and  acted  upon  in  the  study 
of  God’s  word.  Another  great  general  lesson  to  be  impressed 
upon  you  is,  that  you  can  gain  no  real  valuable  knowledge  of 
the  word  of  God  unless  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  accompany 
your  study  of  it,  that  this  truth  ought  to  be  recognised  and  acted 
upon,  that  it  should  lead  you  to  cherish  a  corresponding  frame  of 
mind,  i.e.  such  a  frame  of  mind  as  is  the  rational  and  appropriate 
result  of  the  assured  belief  of  it ;  and  to  make  it  your  leading 
object  in  everything  connected  with  the  study  of  God’s  word,  to 
act  in  such  a  way  and  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  tend,  in 
accordance  with  what  God  has  revealed  regarding  his  ordinary 
principle  of  procedure,  to  secure  for  you  most  fully  and  habitually 
the  presence  and  operation  of  his  Spirit  to  guide  you  into  all 
truth.  It  may  indeed  be  alleged  that  since  it  is  admitted  that 
the  whole  revealed  will  of  God  is  actually  contained  in  the  words 
and  statements  of  Scripture,  and  since  it  is  also  admitted  that  the 
meaning  of  the  words  of  Scripture  is  to  be  investigated  and 
ascertained  in  substantially  the  same  way,  and  by  the  use  of  the 
same  means  as  the  statements  of  other  books,  nothing  more  is 
necessary  to  understand  the  meaning  of  Scripture  than  to  under¬ 
stand  any  other  similar  ancient  work,  and  that  any  special  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  superfluous.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  there 
is  some  truth  in  this  allegation,  Le.  there  is  a  sense  in  which  a 
considerable  measure  of  acquaintance  with  the  meaning  of  the 
statements  of  Scripture  may  be  acquired  by  those  who  do  not 
enjoy  the  special  guidance  and  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  true  that  most  commonly  those  who  afford  by  their  opinions, 
their  character,  or  their  conduct,  evidence  that  they  have  not  the 
guidance  and  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  fail  in  understanding  correctly 
even  those  fundamental  doctrines  which  are  most  clearly  revealed. 
But  tliis  is  not  universally  the  case. 


ENLIGHTENING  AGENCY  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIFdT.  561 


There  have  been  men  who  seem  to  have  been,  in  some  sense, 
honestly  persuaded  that^  the  leading  principles  of  evangelical 
doctrine  are  taught  in  Scripture,  and  who,  by  the  use  of  the 
ordinary  resources  of  learning  and  criticism,  have  defended  these 
principles  against  the  assaults  of  adversaries,  while  yet  there  was 
reason  to  fear  that  they  did  not  enjoy  the  guidance  and  teaching 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  in  no  way  practically  impressed  by 
those  truths  which  they  seemed  to  believe,  and  which  they  may 
have  successfully  defended,  and  were  never  led  to  anything  like  a 
real  knowledge  or  perception  of  the  objects  which  these  truths 
unfold.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  even  men  who  do  not  believe  in 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Bible  may,  in  the  use  of  the 
ordinary  appropriate  means,  attain  to  a  considerable  measure  of 
correct  acquaintance  with  its  statements.  Some  striking  instances 
of  this,  as  well  as  some  testimonies  to  the  scriptural  authority  of 
orthodox  doctrines,  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the 
German  rationalists.  These  men  have  usually  given  a  great 
measure  of  attention  to  the  critical  study  of  the  Bible,  as  of  a 
merely  human  book,  by  ordinary  human  means ;  and  some  of 
them  who  were  most  eminently  distinguished  for  their  learning 
and  critical  acumen  have,  in  the  interpretations  of  particular 
portions  of  Scripture,  shewn,  on  purely  critical  grounds,  that  the 
declarations  of  Paul,  for  instance,  contained  plain  assertions  of  the 
common  orthodox  or  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  the  Calvinistic 
interpretation  was  plainly  that  which,  according  to  the  strict  rules 
of  exegesis,  ought  to  be  put  upon  the  apostle’s  words  ;  while,  at 
the  same  time,  they  have  given  us  distinctly  to  understand  that 
they  could  not  believe  anything  so  irrational  or  absurd  upon  his 
authority.  It  is  also  certain  generally  that  many  men  who,  there 
is  the  best  reason  to  believe;  did  not  enjoy  the  guidance  and 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  cast  much  light  upon  many  of 
the  obscurer  passages  of  Scripture,  and  have  virtually  settled  or 
determined  the  interpretation  which  has  ever  since  been  generally 
put  upon  them,  even  by  men  who  enjoyed  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit  of  truth.  All  this  must  be  admitted  as  true,  and  no  doctrine 
inconsistent  with  it  can  be  received.  But  there  is  nothing  in  all 
this  inconsistent  with  what  we  have  said  about  the  enlightening 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  substance  of  what  we  contend 


562 


FORTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


for  upon  this  point  may  be  summed  up  in  these  two  positions — 
first,  that  the  special  enlightening  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  indis¬ 
pensable  to  the  attainment  of  any  real,  practical,  effective  know¬ 
ledge  of  God’s  word — any  knowledge  of  Scripture  that  is  really 
worthy  of  the  name,  or  of  any  value  and  importance,  so  far  as 
concerns  men’s  highest,  their  eternal  interests  ;  and  second,  that 
the  assistance  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  be  sought  and 
expected  in  the  investigation  into  the  meaning  of  every  portion 
of  Scripture,  and  that  the  actual  enjoyment  of  this  guidance  and 
assistance  is,  though  not  indispensable  to  our  attaining  a  correct 
intellectual  conception  of  the  meaning  of  any  scriptural  statement, 
yet  the  best  and  the  only  effectual  security  for  our  acquiring  an 
accurate  and  extensive  acquaintance  with  God’s  word.  The 
difference  between  the  knowledge  which  men  without  the  Spirit 
may  gain  of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  and  that  knowledge 
which  alone  is  valuable  and  saving,  and  for  which  we  must  be 
indebted  exclusively  to  his  agency,  cannot,  perhaps  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  be  very  precisely  defined,  or  very  exactly 
described,  except  by  its  effects.^ 

The  statements  of  Scripture  about  the  enlightening  agency  of 
the  Spirit,  chiefly  respect,  no  doubt,  the  communication  to  men  of 
that  knowledge  of  fundamental  and  necessary  things,  which  makes 
them  wise  unto  salvation.  But  as  the  whole  word  of  God  was 
inspired  by  him,  and  as  it  is  all  fitted  to  bear  more  or  less  directly 
upon  the  great  object  of  promoting  men’s  growth  in  knowledge 
and  in  holiness,  as  it  effects  any  part  of  these  objects  only  so  far 
as  it  is  used  as  an  instrument  in  his  hand,  and  can  have  even  an 
instrumental  efficacy  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  correctly  understood, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  he  is  ever  ready  to  aid  us  in  all  our  humble 
and  honest  attempts  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  statements 
of  his  word ;  that  his  aid  must  be  of  paramount  importance,  and 
indeed  affords  the  only  security  that  we  have  correctly  apprehended 
the  import  of  the  truths  which  he  inspired.  The  Scripture  clearly 
warrants  these  positions  ;  and  though  it  does  not  give  any  explicit 
information  about  the  modes  of  the  Spirit’s  operation  in  enlighten¬ 
ing  the  mind  and  guiding  to  a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the 

^  I  have  omitted  an  extract  here,  and  another  a  few  pages  further  on,  from 
Owen’s  2TNE2I2  nNETMATiKH.  The  passages  will  be  found  in  Dr  Goold’s 
edition,  vol.  iv.  pp.  156  and  204. — Ed. 


SPIRITS  WORK  SUBJECTIVE. 


563 


Bible,  yet  it  tells  us  enough  to  be  the  basis  of  important  practical 
conclusions  as  to  certain  means  to  be  used  in  conducting  our  study 
of  it.  We  have  already  stated  the  reasons  why  we  do  not  mean 
at  present  to  give  any  detailed  exposition  of  the  great  Scripture 
doctrine  concerning  the  enlightening  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
our  object  being  simply  to  point  out  the  practical  lessons  to  be 
deduced  from  it,  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  Scriptures  ought  to 
be  studied.  But  there  are  one  or  two  explanatory  observations 
which  it  maybe  useful  to  lay  before  you.  First,  then,  this  enlight¬ 
ening  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  guiding  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  is  something  specifically  differ¬ 
ent  from  what  may  be  called  the  ordinary  blessing  of  God  upon 
our  efforts  in  the  use  of  ordinary  natural  means.  All  men  who 
admit  the  existence  and  moral  government  of  God  acknowledge, 
in  some  vague  and  indefinite  sense,  the  necessity  of  the  divine 
blessing  in  order  to  the  successful  exercise  of  their  faculties,  and 
the  due  improvement  of  the  ordinary  means  for  the  attainment  of 
any  end.  Socinians,  and  others  who  deny  the  existence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  a  distinct  person,  would  not  hesitate  to  declare  the 
necessity  of  the  divine  blessing,  and  to  express  their  dependence 
upon  it  for  attaining  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of 
Scripture.  But  the  enlightening  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  plainly 
represented  to  us  in  the  Bible  as  something  distinct  from  this^ 
and  as  altogether  special  and  peculiar  in  its  origin  and  character. 
We  have  not  indeed  materials  for  explaining  very  precisely  this 
specialty  or  peculiarity,  as  it  is  described  in  Scripture  chiefly  by 
its  results,  in  a  practical  knowledge  and  in  saving  benefits — results 
which,  we  are  assured,  never  proceed  from  any  other  source.  But  it 
is  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  blessing  of  God  upon  the  exercise 
of  our  faculties  upon  the  use  of  means  in  these  respects,  besides  what 
we  know  of  the  momentous  difference  of  the  results,  that  it  is  ascribed 
peculiarly  to  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  that  it  is  represented 
as  the  fruit  of  Christ’s  purchase,  as  procured  by  him,  and  imparted 
by  him,  and  that  it  has  special  reference  to  the  natural  ungodliness 
of  men’s  hearts,  and  the  natural  darkness  of  their  understandings. 

Another  important  truth  clearly  taught  us  in  Scripture  con¬ 
cerning  the  enlightening  agency  of  the  Spirit  is,  that  it  does  not 
consist  merely  in  the  objective  presentation  of  the  truth,  but  also 
and  principally  in  a  subjective  work  upon  our  intellectual  and 


564 


FORTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


moral  natures.  The  Spirit  does  indeed  present  the  truth  objectively 
to  our  minds.  The  whole  word  of  God  is  to  be  traced  to  his  more 
immediate  agency,  and  he  in  some  sense  uses  the  truth  revealed 
as  his  instrument  in  all  his  enlightening  and  saving  operations. 
But  the  cause  of  the  essential  difference  between  that  presentation 
of  the  truth  by  which  men’s  minds  have  been  really  enlightened 
and  their  hearts  savingly  impressed,  and  all  previous  presentations 
of  it  when  no  such  results  were  exhibited,  must,  since  the  truth 
itself  is  the  same,  and  the  difference  of  the  result  is  ascribed  in 
Scripture  wholly  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  be  sought  in  some 
effect  produced  by  him  upon  the  subject  or  recipient  man,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  which  he  deals  with  and  is  affected  by  the  truth 
differently  from  what  he  had  ever  done  or  been  before.  This 
general  idea,  that  the  enlightening  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  not 
merely  an  objective  presentation  of  the  truth,  but  implies  also  a 
subjective  work  in  our  understandings  and  our  hearts,  is  evidently 
sanctioned  by  the  language  of  Scripture  describing  it,  when  it 
speaks  of  opening  our  eyes,  shining  into  our  hearts,  giving  us 
light,”  &c.  And  the  character  of  his  work,  we  cannot  doubt,  is 
substantially  the  same  in  the  whole  of  the  future  process  of 
guiding  us  into  all  truth,  and  opening  up  to  us  more  fully  and  in 
detail  the  meaning  of  the  inspired  word,  by  delivering  us  from 
causes  of  error,  directing  and  controlling  us  in  the  exercise  of  our 
faculties,  and  leading  us  to  right  conclusions.  But  what  we  have 
chiefly  to  do  with  at  present  is  the  consideration  of  the  practical 
conclusions  which  this  great  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit  in  guiding  us  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  of  God 
suggests  and  impresses,  or  the  practical  rules  which  it  requires  us 
to  observe  in  the  study  of  the  Bible,  in  order  that  we  may  attain  to 
the  fullest  and  most  correct  knowledge  of  God’s  revealed  will. 
And  this  may  be  said  to  consist  generally  in  acknowledging  and 
honouring  the  Spirit’s  agency  in  the  matter,  as  it  is  set  before  us 
in  Scripture,  and  using  those  means  which  we  have  reason  from 
Scripture  to  believe  bear  more  immediately  upon  the  object  of 
bringing  his  agency  into  operation,  W  e  are  to  acknowledge  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  inspiring  the  Scriptures,  and  in  opening  up 
their  true  meaning;  we  are  to  believe  the  truth  upon  these  points^ 
and  to  be  suitably  impressed  or  affected  by  it.  In  studying  the 
Bible  and  investigating  the  meaning  of  its  statements,  we  are  to 


CRITICAL  STUDY. 


565 


be  ever  deeply  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  it  is  the  Spirit’s 
words  we  are  dealing  with,  and  that  it  is  by  his  special  agency 
alone  that  we  can  fully  understand  them.  These  are  the  great 
features  in  which  the  Bible  differs  from  every  other  book — -first, 
that  it  was  given  by  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  second, 
that  he  not  only  produced  it,  but  enlightens  us  in  the  knowledge 
of  its  meaning.  And  these  truths  ought  to  be  ever  present  to 
our  thoughts,  and  to  be  exerting  their  appropriate  influence  when 
we  engage  in  the  study  of  it.  The  principle  that  the  Bible  is  to 
be  interpreted  and  explained  in  the  same  way  as  any  other  book, 
has  been  perhaps  most  broadly  asserted  and  most  strenuously 
insisted  upon  by  those  who  have  denied  its  inspiration  ;  but  there 
is  no  necessary  connection  between  them.  The  principle  that  the 
Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  and  explained  in  the  same  way  as  any 
other  book  is,  though  it  has  been  much  abused,  substantially  a 
sound  one,  and  does  not  necessarily  either  spring  from  or  lead  to 
a  denial  of  its  plenary  inspiration.  The  meaning  of  the  words, 
clauses,  and  sentences  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  must  be 
ascertained  by  the  use  of  the  same  materials,  by  the  application  of 
the  same  rules,  and  the  prosecution  of  the  same  processes,  by  which 
we  ascertain  the  meaning  of  any  other  books  in  dead  languages. 
There  is  no  other  way  in  which  we  can  attain  to  a  correct  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  exact  meaning  of  the  statements  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  dictated  and  put  on  record.  And,  except  by  acquiring 
a  correct  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  what  is  actually  said  in 
Scripture,  we  have  no  certain  means  of  knowing  God’s  revealed 
will.  A  belief  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scripture,  far  from 
leading  us  to  reject  or  lay  aside  this  principle,  should  only  lead  us 
more  faithfully  and  more  fearlessly  to  apply  it.  We  believe  that 
all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  therefore  we  need 
not  be  afraid  that  anything  which  is  really  contained  in  Scripture, 
correctly  and  critically  understood,  will  be  dishonouring  to  God,  or 
injurious  to  us,  or  inconsistent  with  any  other  portion  of  the  sacred 
record  ;  and  on  this  account  our  belief  in  its  inspiration  should  just 
lead  us  to  apply  the  more  rigorous  and  stringent  investigation  to 
the  discovery  of  the  true  actual  import  of  every  statement  which  it 
contains.  But  while  a  belief  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  should  not  preclude,  but  on  the  contrary  encourage,  the  fullest 
application  of  the  ordinary  rules  to  the  investigation  of  the 


566 


FORTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


meaning  of  tlie  statements,  it  should  constrain  us  to  conduct  this 
investigation  at  all  times  under  a  feeling  of  deep  solemnity,  with 
a  single  desire  to  know  the  true  and  real  meaning  of  what  the 
Spirit  has  dictated,  and  with  a  determined  purpose,  and  a  cordial 
willingness,  to  submit  our  understanding,  our  heart,  and  our  life, 
to  whatever  it  shall  appear  that  he  has  really  declared  or  required. 
And  if  we  are  dependent  in  any  measure  or  to  any  extent  upon 
an  additional  and  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  for  understanding 
aright  what  he  has  inspired,  then  it  is  indispensable  and  obliga¬ 
tory  upon  us  that  we  be  aware  of  this,  that  we  feel  and  express 
this  dependence.  This  is  a  state  of  mind  obviously  required  ;  its 
absence  or  deficiency  has  an  evident  tendency,  according  to  the 
ordinary  principles  of  the  divine  procedure,  to  prevent  our  receiving 
the  guidance  and  assistance  of  which  we  stand  in  need,  and  its 
presence  and  fulness  have  a  tendency  directly  the  reverse.  Upon 
the  ground  of  this  truth  we  are  more  immediately  called  upon  to 
inquire  whether  there  be  anything  more  specific  required  of  us 
and  competent  to  us,  the  tendency  of  which  according  to  God’s 
arrangements  is,  and  the  result  of  which  therefore  may  be  expected 
to  be,  that  this  guidance  and  assistance  shall  be  vouchsafed  to  us. 
And  here  our  attention  is  at  once  arrested  and  fixed  by  the  great 
scriptural  doctrine  that  God  giveth  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that 
ask  him.  This  at  once  opens  up  to  us  a  great  privilege,  and 
imposes  upon  us  an  important  duty — the  privilege  and  the  duty  of 
prayer.  If  our  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  God’s  word  depends 
upon  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  if  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  promised  to  them  that  ask  him,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  all  who 
desire  to  know  fully  and  correctly  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  to 
pray  without  ceasing.  It  is  with  prayer  as  a  duty  rather  than  as 
a  privilege  that  we  have  here  to  do,  for  it  comes  before  us  in  this 
shape,  that  one  leading  and  fundamental  rule  to  direct  us  in 
seekiug  to  attain  to  a  knowledge  of  God’s  word  is,  that  we  must 
abound  in  prayer  and  supplication  for  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of 
truth.  This  needs  scarcely  any  explanation.  The  great  matter  is, 
that  the  obligation  of  the  duty  be  deeply  impressed  upon  our 
understanding  and  our  heart,  and  that  the  duty  itself  be  faithfully 
and  perseveringly  discharged.  But  it  is  not  enough  that  we  make 
it  a  part  of  our  ordinary  supplications  that  the  Spirit  would  guide 
us  into  all  truth,  and  direct  us  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  his 


PRAYER  FOR  SPIRITUAL  ENLIGHTENMENT.  567 


inspired  word  ;  we  should  pray  for  his  special  presence  and  blessing 
upon  every  attempt  we  make  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  in  any  portion  of  his  word  to  which  our  attention  may  at  any 
time  be  directed. '  Let  me  just  impress  upon  you  and  earnestly 
entreat  you  to  remember  and  apply  these  plain  considerations, 
that  men,  admitting  the  great  truths  to  which  I  have  briefly 
adverted,  and  yet  not  accompanying  all  their  attempts  to  investi¬ 
gate  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  God’s  word  with  fervent 
prayer  for  the  guidance  of  God  s  Spirit,  plainly  prove  that  they 
have  no  real  desire  to  know  what  God  has  revealed  to  men  in  the 
Bible,  and  therefore  need  not  be  surprised,  and  have  no  right  to 
complain  that  they  continue  in  ignorance,  or  that  they  fall  into 
error ;  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  men  whose  fervent  prayers  for  the 
enlightening  influence  of  the  Spirit  precede  and  follow  all  their 
attempts,  in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  to  ascertain  the  meaning 
of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  will  not  only  be  preserved  from  all 
dangerous  error,  but  will  attain  to  a  much  more  correct  and 
complete  knowledge  of  the  Bible  than  they  might  be  apt  to 
anticipate,  or  than  they  could  reach  in  any  other  way,  that  they 
will  not  only  grow  greatly  in  knowledge  themselves,  but  will 
become  fully  able  to  instruct  others  also. 

It  is  of  the  last  importance  that  this  great  doctrine  of  the  special 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  guiding  to  the  right  knowledge  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  should  be  understood,  so  far  as  it  is  revealed, 
that  it  should  be  believed,  remembered,  and  applied  by  all  of  you, 
and  it  is  my  earnest  prayer  that  he  himself  may  impress  it  power¬ 
fully  upon  your  understandings  and  your  hearts,  and  enable  you 
ever  to  act  under  its  influence.  But  I  cannot  at  present  dwell 
longer  upon  it,  and  must  conclude  with  pointing  out  two  ways  in 
which  the  doctrine  has  been  and  may  be  abused.  Instances  have 
sometimes  occurred  in  which,  where  a  difference  of  opinion  arose 
about  the  meaning  of  a  portion  of  Scripture,  one  of  the  parties 
has  attempted  to  settle  the  dispute  in  this  summary  way,  by 
asserting  that  he  had  the  guidance  and  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  and 
that  his  opponent  had  not.  This  assertion  might  be  true  in  itself, 
and  he  who  made  it  might  have  good  ground  for  believing  it ;  but 
such  an  assertion  could  make  no  salutary  or  beneficial  impression 
upon  the  other  party.  It  is  true  moreover  that  it  is  not  a  legiti¬ 
mate  way  of  settling  the  dispute.  The  question  remains — What 


568 


FORTY-SIXTH  LECTURE. 


is  the  true  meaning  of  this  portion  of  Scripture  ?  This  must  be 
investigated  and  ascertained  in  the  ordinary  use  of  the  appropriate 
means,  and  by  the  application  of  the  usual  legitimate  tests,  the 
examination  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  singly  and  in  their  con¬ 
nection,  and  of  the  construction  and  relative  bearing  of  the  different 
clauses.  Every  man  who  puts  an  interpretation  upon  any  portion 
of  Scripture,  and  who  urges  it  upon  the  adoption  of  another,  is 
bound  to  establish  its  correctness,  if  called  in  question,  by  an 
examination  of  the  words  as  they  stand,  and  by  a  fair  application 
to  them  of  the  recognised  and  legitimate  principles  of  criticism. 
There  is  no  standard  but  the  law  and  the  testimony,  and  however 
confident  men  may  be  that  they  have  the  guidance  and  teaching 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  matter,  they  should  not  only  remember  that 
this  consideration  is  of  no  weight  in  convincing  another,  but  to 
guard  themselves  against  error  and  delusion,  to  promote  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  truth,  to  advance  the  honour  of  the  word,  and  to  secure 
the  great  objects  for  which  it  was  inspired,  it  is  incumbent  upon 
all  men — first,  to  draw  all  their  opinions  from  a  careful  study  and  a 
correct  interpretation  of  the  actual  words  of  Scripture ;  and  second, 
to  be  ever  ready  to  state  the  grounds  on  which  they  have  put  this 
interpretation  upon  them,  and  to  shew  to  those  who  differ  from 
them  that  the  opposite  view  is  not  really  sanctioned  by  the  correct 
explanation  of  the  words  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  actually 
employed.  It  has  sometimes  been  imagined,  or  at  least  men  have 
acted  as  if  they  imagined,  that  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
superseded  the  use  or  application  of  the  ordinary  and  appropriate 
means  of  ascertaining  the  true  and  correct  meaning  of  the  actual 
statements  of  Scripture.  This  is  a  notion  utterly  destitute  of 
foundation,  and  full  of  danger.  Its  tendency  is  to  produce  sloth 
and  fanaticism,  and  to  involve  men  in  dangerous  error.  It  has 
been  often  said,  and  said  truly,  in  regard  to  the  work  of  sanctifica¬ 
tion,  that  men  should  labour  as  if  they  could  do  all,  and  pray  as  if 
they  could  do  nothing.  So  it  is  here;  men  must  use  the  ordinary 
appropriate  means  of  acquiring  an  accurate  critical  knowledge  of 
the  meaning  and  import  of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  as  if  this 
were  abundantly  sufficient  for  knowing  fully  the  revealed  will  of 
God ;  and  they  must  seek  the  teaching  and  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  if  nothing  else  were  of  any  use  or  advantage  whatever. 
What  the  ordinary  and  appropriate  means  are  we  must  now  pro¬ 
ceed  briefly  to  explain. 


LECTURE  XLVII. 


EIGHT  OF  PEIVATE  JUDGMENT,  AND  NECESSITY  OF 
PERSONAL  STUDY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


WE  have  considered  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  guiding 
to  the  true  meaning  and  the  right  knowledge  of  the  word 
of  God,  not  professing  at  present  to  give  anything  like  a  full 
exposition  of  the  illuminating  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  leading  into 
all  truth,  as  a  great  Bible  doctrine,  but  merely  such  a  brief  state¬ 
ment  of  its  general  nature,  and  of  its  necessity  and  importance, 
as  might  illustrate  the  obligation  of  the  great  practical  rule  which 
the  doctrine  suggests  as  indispensable  in  the  study  of  Gods  word, 
viz.,  fervent  and  habitual  prayer  for  the  assistance  and  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  directed  your  attention  to  the  two  great 
points  in  which  the  Bible  is  distinguished  from  all  other  books, 
viz. — first,  that  it  was  all  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  second, 
that  it  can  be  rightly  understood  only  through  his  special  agency ; 
and  we  endeavoured  to  point  out  to  you  how  far  and  in  what 
respects  these  important  peculiarities  should  affect  both  the  spirit 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  ought  to  be  studied,  and  in  which  its 
meaning  ought  to  be  investigated.  Let  me  again  impress  upon 
you  the  paramount  importance  of  having  regard  in  all  your  study 
of  the  word  of  God  to  the  great  truths  upon  this  subject  which 
have  been  set  before  you,  and  to  the  practical  rules  which  they 
obviously  suggest,  since  an  application  and  observance  of  them  is 
essential  to  your  acquiring  any  real  or  valuable  knowledge  of  God’s 
revelation — any  such  knowledge  of  it  as  will  be  of  any  real  avail  to 
you  either  as  men  who  have  souls  to  be  saved,  or  as  ministers  of 
the  gospel  who  are  called  upon  to  labour  and  to  watch  for  the 
salvation  of  the  souls  of  others.  All  men  who  believe  in  the 


570 


FORTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  distinct  person,  admit  in  some 
sense  the  necessity  of  his  agency  to  understanding  aright  divine 
truth  and  interpreting  aright  the  statements  of  Scripture,  though 
many  have  entertained  very  defective  and  erroneous  notions  upon 
the  subject.  Even  the  Papists  admit  that  we  are  guided  certainly 
to  the  right  meaning  of  the  word  of  God  only  by  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit ;  but  they  deny  that  the  Spirit  is  promised  to  men  in 
general  and  individually,  or  that  they  have  a  right  to  interpret 
Scripture  for  themselves.  They  hold  that  the  promise  is  given 
only  to  the  church,  i.e.  to  office-bearers  and  representatives,  that  it 
consequently  belongs  to  her  to  interpret,  and  that  private  indi¬ 
viduals  must  take  their  views  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture  from 
the  church’s  decisions.  In  order  to  establish  these  views  Papists 
are  bound  to  prove — first,  that  private  individuals  are  prohibited 
from  interpreting  the  Scriptures  for  themselves,  or  at  least  that 
they  have  no  right  to  expect  the  guidance  and  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  seeking  to  ascertain  their  meaning  ;  and  second, 
that  God  has  authorised  and  established  a  permanent  living 
infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture  in  the  church.  On  the  second 
of  these  positions  we  formerly  had  occasion  to  make  some  observa¬ 
tions  directed  to  the  object  of  shewing  you — first,  that  God  has 
not  appointed  any  living  infallible  interpreter  in  the  church ; 
second,  that  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  by  which  they  say  that  the 
church  ought  to  be  guided  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  is 
not  an  authorised  or  a  safe  or  a  practicable  standard  to  follow  in 
this  matter ;  and  third,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  no  pretensions 
to  this  character,  as  she  has  never  given  an  authorised  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  any  chapter  of  Scripture,  and  as  it  can  be  conclusively 
proved  that  she  has  taught  many  doctrines  professedly  based  upon 
the  word  of  God,  and  yet  manifestly  inconsistent  with  the  true 
meaning  of  its  statements.  As  our  principal  object  in  this  lecture 
is  to  illustrate  the  right  and  duty  of  men  to  interpret  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  for  themselves,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  and 
upon  their  own  responsibility,  to  enforce  upon  you  as  the  first 
great  practical  rule  for  guiding  you  to  a  correct  knowledge  of 
Scripture  that  you  must,  each  one  of  you  for  himself,  bring  your 
own  powers  and  faculties  to  bear  closely  and  steadily  upon  the 
investigation  of  its  meaning,  we  may  advert  now  for  a  little  to 
the  first  of  these  Popish  positions.  The  ground  taken  by  the 


I 


PRIVATE  JUDGMENT.  571 

Papists  upon  this  subject  may  be  comprehended  in  these  three 
assertions — first,  that  private  individuals  are  prohibited  by  Scrip¬ 
ture  itself  from  interpreting  it ;  second,  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Spirit  is  promised  not  to  individuals  but  to  the  church  or  its  office¬ 
bearers  ;  and  third,  that  to  give  to  each  man  the  right  of  interpret¬ 
ing  Scripture  for  himself  upon  his  own  responsibility,  is  just  to 
make  each  man's  notions  and  fancies  his  rule  of  faith. 

Upon  the  first  of  these  points  the  proof  they  commonly  adduce, 
and  the  only  one  they  have  to  allege,  is  2  Peter  i.  20 — Know¬ 
ing  this  first  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any  private  inter¬ 
pretation,  for  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 
man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.’’  Now,  this  declaration,  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of 
any  private  interpretation,  is  one  the  exact  meaning  of  which  it  is 
not  easy  to  ascertain  or  decide  upon.  Many  different  interpreta¬ 
tions  of  it  have  been  proposed,  and  it  can  scarcely  be  said  that 
there  is  any  one  of  them  in  the  correctness  of  which  the  generality 
of  competent  judges  are  agreed.^  There  is  no  difficulty  however 
in  proving  that,  whatever  may  be  its  precise  meaning,  it  affords  no 
countenance  whatever  to  the  Papist  notion  that  it  prohibits  or 
discourages  private  individuals  from  interpreting  Scripture  for  them- 
seves  ;  for  first,  it  applies,  strictly  speaking,  only  to  the  prophetical 
parts  of  Scripture,  and  not  to  the  Bible  in  general ;  and  second,  it 
is  deduced  immediately  as  an  inference  from  the  great  truth  that 
prophecy  was  given  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
therefore  it  must  respect  all  men  equally,  whether  collectively  or 
individually,  whether  in  their  public  or  in  their  private  capacity. 
Indeed,  of  all  the  interpretations  which  have  been  proposed  of  this 
passage  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  one  which  is  upon  the 
whole  best  supported  is  that  which  assigns  to  it  this  meaning — 
that  the  prophecies  of  Scripture  are  not  of  their  own  revelation, 
that  is,  did  not  proceed  merely  from  the  authors  who  delivered 
them,  and  the  reason  is  because  then  men  spake  not  of  their  own 
will,  but  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  while  the 
Popish  notion  of  the  unlawfulness  of  private  individuals  interpret¬ 
ing  the  Scripture  for  themselves  thus  derives  no  countenance  from 
this  passage,  it  is  contradicted  by  all  we  know  concerning  God  s 
great  design  in  inspiring  the  Scriptures,  in  putting  them  into  men  s 

1  See  Storr  and  Flatt,  p.  09. 


572 


FORTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


hands,  and  requiring  them  to  search  and  study  them.  If  men  are 
to  read  and  search  the  Scriptures,  the  presumption  at  least  is,  and 
unless  some  clear  and  positive  evidence  on  the  other  side  can  be 
adduced  the  certainty  is,  that  they  are  not  only  entitled  but  bound 
to  investigate  their  meaning  and  to  ascertain  it  for  themselves  in 
the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties.  The  same  general  idea  may 
also  be  applied  in  refutation  of  the  Popish  assertion  about  the 
promise  of  the  Spirit.  If  God  has  made  his  word  public  property 
and  put  it  into  men’s  hands  that  they  may  search  it  and  know  his 
will,  and  if  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  be  necessary  to  enable  men  to 
make  a  right  use  of  it,  then  the  presumption,  and  unless  positive 
proof  to  the  contary  can  be  adduced,  the  certainty,  is  that  those  who 
have  the  written  word  are  fully  warranted  to  ask  and  to  expect 
the  guidance  and  teaching  of  the  Spirit;  and  though  there  are 
some  of  the  promises  of  the  Spirit  which  it  may  be  plausibly  con¬ 
tended  were  addressed  specially  to  the  apostles,  and  can  now  be 
pleaded  only  by  their  successors  as  office-bearers  in  the  church, 
yet  it  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  any  scriptural  authority  for 
limiting  the  enlightening  agency  of  the  Spirit  to  them,  or  for  hold¬ 
ing  that  any  who  have  the  word  of  God,  and  are  desirous  to  under¬ 
stand  and  apply  it,  are  not  warranted  to  ask  and  to  expect  this. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  many  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  which  clearly  assert  or  implj"  that  unconverted  men  are 
guided  by  the  Spirit  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus,  and  that  thereafter  they  are  guided  by  him  into  all  neces¬ 
sary  truth  ;  and  as  we  have  not  now  any  certain  means  of  knowing 
the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  salvation  except  through  the 
written  word,  his  enlightening  agency  must  be  exerted  in  guiding 
them  to  a  right  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  And  if 
they  enjoy  his  guidance  in  leading  them  to  a  knowledge  of  those 
things  which  are  necessary  for  salvation,  they  are  warranted  to  ask 
and  expect  his  assistance  in  all  their  subsequent  attempts  to 
ascertain,  to  realise,  and  apply  the  meaning  of  every  portion  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 

But  the  most  plausible  consideration  which  the  Papists  adduce 
upon  this  subject  is  this,  that  if  every  man  is  entitled  to  interpret  the 
Scripture  for  himself,  this  is  just  virtually  to  make  each  man’s  own 
notions  or  fancies  as  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture  his  rule  of  faith. 
But  the  plausibility  of  this  vanishes  when  we  just  attend  to  the 


PRIVATE  JUDGMENT. 


573 


true  state  of  the  case.  No  Protestant  contends  or  admits  that  the 
rule  of  faith,  the  standard  by  which  the  opinions  and  conduct  of 
men  ought  to  be  regulated,  is  anything  else  than  the  word  of  God 
as  he  has  given  it  to  us,  or  that  men  are  warranted  to  put  any 
interpretation  upon  any  portion  of  the  word  of  God  that  may  suit 
their  own  fancy  or  inclination,  their  interest  or  convenience  ;  and  it 
cannot  be  shewn  that  these  notions  or  anything  like  them  are 
involved  in,  or  deducible  from,  any  principle  they  hold.  The 
revealed  will  of  God  is  wholly  contained  in  the  actual  statements 
of  his  written  word  as  it  stands.  It  is  all  there,  and  nowhere  else  ; 
that  word,  and  that  alone,  is  the  standard.  But  who  are  to  find 
out  its  meaning  ?  and  how  is  this  to  be  ascertained  ?  Those  to 
whom  God  has  given  it  are  bound  to  use  it  to  the  best  of  their 
ability  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given  them.  If  God  has 
appointed  a  living  infallible  interpreter  to  make  known  its  mean¬ 
ing,  they  must  of  course  submit  implicitly  to  his  decision  ;  and  if 
not,  they  must  find  it  out  for  themselves,  in  the  right  use  of  such 
means  and  assistances  as  God  has  given  them,  or  put  within  their 
reach.  There  is  no  medium  between  these  two  things,  either  men 
must  receive  the  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scripture  upon  the 
authority  of  others,  or  they  must  ascertain  for  themselves  and  be 
fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds.  God  has  not  required — nay, 
he  has  plainly  forbidden — us  to  receive  the  meaning  of  his  word 
upon  the  mere  authority  of  any  man  or  body  of  men  ;  and  the  con¬ 
clusion  therefore  is  inevitable,  that  we  must  investigate  it  for  our¬ 
selves,  and  receive  the  doctrines  and  precepts  ultimately  upon  the 
conviction  of  our  own  understandings  that  they  are  in  accordance 
with  what  the  word  of  God  really  teaches. 

It  may  be  a  misfortune  that  we  have  not  a  living  interpreter  of 
Scripture  on  whose  decisions  we  can  safely  rest,  in  whose  decrees 
as  to  what  really  is  the  revealed  will  of  God  we  are  warranted 
and  bound  to  acquiesce.  But  God  has  not  provided  and  has  not 
indicated  to  us  any  such  interpreter,  and  therefore  we  must 
patiently  submit  to  the  want  of  it,  seek  to  ascertain  w’hat  is  our 
own  duty  in  the  matter  in  the  actual  circumstances  in  which  we 
are  placed,  and  discharge  it  to  the  best  of  our  ability.  Many  men 
may  be  placed  in  God’s  providence  in  circumstances  in  which  they 
have  very  scanty  and  inadequate  means  of  acquiring  a  full  and 
certain  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  God’s  word,  and  in  which  they 


574 


FORTY-SEVENTH  LECTURE. 


are  to  some  considerable  extent  dependent  upon  others  for  the  use 
and  improvement  of  these  means.  The  opportunities  which  men 
enjoy  of  attaining  to  a  full  and  certain  knowledge  of  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  Vary  indefinitely  according  to  their  circumstances,  from 
the  case  of  those  who  have  never  been  taught  to  read  at  all,  and 
who  are  dependent  wholly  upon  oral  instruction,  to  those  who  can 
read  the  Scriptures  for  themselves  in  the  original  languages,  all 
the  intermediate  stages  being  accompanied  with  great  varieties  in 
the  collateral  advantages  or  facilities  for  attaining  to  a  correct  and 
comprehensive  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  But  these  diversities 
concern  only  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  bestowing  upon  men  privi¬ 
leges  and  opportunities  according  to  his  own  pleasure,  and  as  it 
seemeth  good  in  his  sight.  They  do  not  in  the  least  affect,  either 
in  argument  or  in  fact,  the  character  of  the  written  word,  the  pur¬ 
poses  it  was  intended  to  serve,  and  its  fitness  for  accomplishing 
these  purposes,  or  what  more  immediately  concerns  our  present 
subject,  the  duty  of  men  in  regard  to  the  word,  the  obligations 
under  which  they  lie  to  use  and  improve  it  for  its  intended  objects 
to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  and  upon  their  own  responsibility. 
None  of  these  considerations,  nor  any  other,  in  the  least  affect  the 
position  either  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  standard  of  faith  and 
practice,  or  that  men  must  use  and  improve  to  the  utmost  all  the 
means  they  possess  of  ascertaining  the  real  meaning  of  all  its 
statements.  Men  have  no  right  to  bring  any  notions  or  fancies  of 
their  own  into  the  Bible,  to  labour  to  get  some  countenance  to 
them  from  the  Scriptures,  and  then  to  hold  them  up,  and  to  urge 
them  upon  others  as  being  the  mind  of  God.  Their  sole  duty  in 
the  matter  is  just  to  ascertain  what  God  has  really  revealed,  i.e. 
to  use  with  the  utmost  diligence,  fidelity,  and  perseverance  all  the 
means  in  their  power  through  which  this  result  may  be  affected. 
A  man’s  own  mere  notions  or  fancies  as  to  the  meaning  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  are  and  should  be  no  rule  to  him  or  to  others.  The  appeal  is 
still,  at  all  times  and  in  all  circumstances,  and  in  opposition  to  all 
men’s  authority,  to  the  declaration  of  God  in  his  word,  to  the 
actual  statements  of  the  Holy  Ghost  rightly  understood  and 
applied.  It  is  true  that  we  have  no  infallible  judge  to  decide 
authoritatively  and  conclusively  upon  the  conflicting  interpreta¬ 
tions  that  may  be  put  upon  scriptural  statements.  But  this  we 
cannot  help,  and  it  does  not  in  the  least  affect  our  duty  or  our 


FEUS  ORAL  STUDY. 


575 


responsibility.  If  God  has  not  given  us  an  infallible  interpreter 
of  his  word,  neither  has  he  required  us  to  submit  our  understand¬ 
ings  and  our  consciences  to  the  authority  of  any  man  or  body  of 
men  in  forming  our  conceptions  of  what  the  meaning  of  any 
statement  of  his  word  is.  He  has  put  his  word  into  our  hands, 
he  has  not  only  given  us  a  right,  but  he  has  imposed  upon  us  an 
obligation  to  examine  and  to  interpret  it ;  he  has  laid  upon  us  a 
serious  responsibility,  and  he  will  himself  call  us  to  account  for 
the  use  we  have  made  of  the  opportunities  he  has  given  us  of 
knowing  his  will.  His  will  stands  fully  revealed  in  his  word, 
whether  men  rightly  understand  and  interpret  it  or  not ;  and  by 
that  word  must  we  all  at  last  be  judged.  Men  cannot  escape 
from  the  responsibility  which  God  has  laid  upon  them.  Every 
man  must  bear  his  own  burden.  Popish  priests  indeed  con¬ 
sistently  enough  undertake  for  the  salvation  of  those  who  submit 
to  their  control.  Indeed  the  whole  system  of  Popery  may  be  said 
to  be  virtually  summed  up  in  this  comprehensive  principle,  that 
the  priests  undertake  for  the  salvation  of  the  people  upon  condi¬ 
tion  that  they  give  themselves  up  soul  and  body,  understanding 
and  conscience,  person  and  purse,  to  their  disposal.  But  they  can 
give  no  security  for  implementing  their  share  of  the  compact,  and 
they  ought  to  be  regarded  as  being  really  agents  of  Satan,  who 
consign  their  victims  altogether  into  his  hands.  They  are  blind 
leading  the  blind,  and  they  both  fall  into  the  ditch.  All  to  whom 
God  has  given  his  word  are  bound  to  search  and  study  it.  They 
may  be  assured  that  in  the  due  use  of  right  means  they  will  gain 
from  it  such  a  knowledge  of  his  will  as  shall  make  them  wise  unto 
salvation.  It  is  certain  that  no  one  who  has  access  to  the  word 
of  God,  and  who  is  able  to  read  it,  will  fail  of  attaining  that  know¬ 
ledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  eternal  life,  except 
through  his  own  fault.  But  all  men  who  have  access  to  the  word 

o 

of  God  are  bound  to  gain  as  correct  and  complete  a  knowledge  of 
the  meaning  of  all  its  statements  as  they  possibly  can;  and  this 
obligation  is  especially  incumbent  upon  those  who  aspire  to  be 
the  religious  instructors  of  others.  And  what  I  am  chiefly  anxious 
to  impress  upon  you  is,  that  this  knowledge  in  all  its  extent  must 
be  the  result  of  your  own  personal  study  of  the  Bible.  The  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  supersede  the  use  of  all  natural,  ordi¬ 
nary,  and  appropriate  means  for  attaining  a  correct  and  exact 


576 


FOETY-SEVENTII  LECTURE. 


knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  its  statements;  and  the  leading 
indispensable  means  of  attaining  this  is  a  careful  and  exact  per¬ 
sonal  study  of  it.  It  is  not  only  true  that  we  must  not  take  the 
meaning  of  scriptural  statements  upon  trust  from  any  man  or 
body  of  men,  but  that  we  must  positively  discover  it  ourselves  by 
our  own  personal  investigation.  No  man  will  ever  have  a  clear 
and  distinct  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  unless  he  has  really  brought  the  powers  and  faculties  of  his 
own  mind  to  bear  upon  it. 

There  are  indeed  many  of  the  statements  of  Scripture  which 
are  so  clear  and  simple  that  scarcely  anything  like  investigation 
is  necessary  to  ascertain  their  meaning.  But  there  are  many 
others  of  a  different  description,  whose  meaning  can  be  ascertained 
only  by  much  pains  and  study,  and  these  therefore  it  is  our  im¬ 
perative  duty  to  employ.  The  most  important  practical  lesson 
that  can  be  enforced  upon  you,  next  to  that  of  seeking  and  depend¬ 
ing  upon  the  enlightening  agency  of  the  Spirit,  is  that  of  the 
imperative  obligation  and  the  indispensable  necessity  of  a  close, 
careful,  and  persevering  study  of  the  actual  statements  of  God’s 
word,  and  of  the  assiduous  devotion  of  all  the  powers  of  your  mind, 
and  all  the  resources  of  your  understanding,  to  the  object  of 
ascertaining  the  precise  meaning  and  import  of  everything  that 
it  contains.  There  is  no  real  knowledge  of  the  word  of  God  to  be 
gained,  no  clear  and  definite  idea  of  the  meaning  of  its  statements, 
nothing  like  a  well-grounded  assurance  that  you  have  ascertained 
the  mind  of  God  in  any  part  of  his  written  word,  unless  you  have 
yourselves  closely  and  carefully  studied  it,  unless  you  have  sub¬ 
jected  its  words  and  clauses  to  an  exact  and  rigid  scrutiny. 
Nothing  can  compensate  for  the  want  of  this.  You  must  study 
the  word  of  God  yourselves ;  no  one  can  do  it  for  you.  It  needs 
and  it  fully  merits  the  intense  application  of  all  your  powers  and 
faculties.  Much  indeed  has  been  written  to  explain  and  elucidate 
the  word  of  God,  and  much  assistance  is  to  be  derived  from  the 
labours  of  those  who  have  directed  much  attention  to  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Scripture.  But  no  reading  of  the  works  of  illustrators 
of  the  Bible  or  commentators  upon  the  sacred  Scriptures  will  be 
of  much  avail  in  giving  you  a  real  knowledge  of  it,  unless  the 
powers  of  your  own  minds  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  it.  It  holds  true  universally  in  regard  to  every  depart- 


CRITICAL  STUDY, 


o77 


merit  of  study,  that  much  assistance  is  to  be  derived  from  the 
labours  of  those  who  have  trodden  the  same  path  before  us.  But 
it  also  holds  true  universally,  that  mere  reading  of  what  has  been 
written  by  others,  without  the  full  and  close  exercise  of  our  own 
faculties,  will  never  lead  us  to  the  possession  of  any  clear,  well- 
digested,  and  effective  knowledge  of  any  subject.  This  holds 
especially  true  of  the  study  of  the  Bible.  No  mere  study  of 
commentators  will  ever  lead  you  to  a  knowledge  of  God’s  word  at 
all  worthy  of  the  name,  unless  you  carefully  study  the  word  itself. 
As  you  must  bear  yourselves  the  responsibility  of  all  the  opinions 
you  form  as  to  the  meaning  of  scriptural  statements,  so  you 
should  see  that  you  really  form  them,  and  know  the  ground  on 
which  they  rest.  While  there  is  a  great  deal  of  ignorance  of  the 
real  meaning  of  Scripture,  a  great  want  of  clear  and  definite  con¬ 
ceptions  as  to  the  import  of  its  statements,  so  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  what  really  differs  little  in  substance  from  this,  namely,  of  a 
taking  our  notions,  such  as  they  are,  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture 
statements  upon  trust  from  others.  It  is  right  that  we  should 
know  something  of  the  labours  of  others  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  when  rightly  used  they  may  afford  us  important 
advantages  ;  but  unless  we  really  bring  our  own  powers  and 
faculties  to  bear  upon  the  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  we  shall  not  be  able  even  to  make  a  right  and  profitable  use 
of  the  labours  of  others.  W e  shall  only  be  confused  and  perplexed 
by  what  we  read,  and  shall  gain  no  clear  and  sound  knowledge  of 
the  Bible.  Let  it  then  be  a  fixed  and  fundamental  rule  with  you 
to  bring  all  your  powers  and  faculties  to  bear  upon  the  exact  and 
critical  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  Let  no  exertion  be  spared.  Let  all  due  attention  be  given, 
and  let  this  attention  be  continued  till  you  have  not  only  formed 
a  distinct  conception  of  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  Scripture 
to  which  your  attention  may  be  directed,  but  until  you  are  masters 
of  the  grounds  on  which  its  true  meaning  can  be  established  and 
defended.  It  is  not  indeed  necessary,  it  would  not  be  right,  that 
the  exact  and  careful  attention  to  the  precise  meaning  of  words 
and  clauses  which  we  formerly,  when  illustrating  the  difficulty  of 
interpreting  the  Bible,  shewed  you  was  implied  in  the  duty  of 
searching  the  Scriptures,  should  be  exercised  on  every  occasion. 

2o 


57$ 


FOBTY-SEVENTE  LECTURE. 


When  you  read  the  word  of  God,  you  should  often  read  it  with  a 
view  to  your  own  personal  improvement,  the  cultivation  of  devout 
feelings  and  holy  affections,  without  stopping  to  examine  minutely 
the  meaning  of  words  and  the  import  and  connection  of  clauses. 
And  even  with  a  view  to  the  mere  object  of  understanding  its 
meaning,  it  is  necessary  that  you  should  sometimes  read  over  con¬ 
siderable  portions  of  it  at  once,  in  order  to  trace  the  general  scope 
and  connection,  and  the  relation  of  the  parts  to  each  other,  without 
attending  much  for  the  time  to  the  precise  meaning  and  bearing 
of  particular  statements.  Still  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  a 
real  knowledge  of  God’s  word  depends  upon  an  exact  knowledge 
of  the  meaning  of  particular  statements,  and  that  this  can  be 
attained  only  by  a  minute  and  detailed  critical  investigation  of 
their  import.  And  while  all  your  powers  and  faculties  should 
thus  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  exact  and  careful  study  of  the 
actual  statements  of  Scripture,  whilst  this  should  be  done,  and 
done  with  assiduous  and  persevering  application,  it  must  be  done 
under  a  deep  feeling  of  responsibility.  To  ascertain  and  bring 
out  the  mind  and  will  of  God  from  his  word  is  the  most  important 
w^ork  in  which  men  can  be  engaged.  Error  or  mistake  here  is 
more  dangerous  and  injurious  than  anywhere  else.  If  we  fail  to 
apprehend  aright  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  Scripture  from 
carelessness  or  negligence,  from  want  of  due  study  or  attention, 
or  from  the  indulgence  of  any  prepossessions  or  prejudices  of  our 
own,  from  bringing  any  preconceived  notions  to  the  word,  or  from 
any  desire  to  make  it  available  for  serving  any  personal  or  party 
object ;  in  short,  because  we  do  not  sincerely  and  supremely  desire 
to  know  what  is  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  or  do  not  rightly  use 
the  proper  means  of  ascertaining  this,  we  incur  guilt,  we  sin 
against  our  owm  souls,  and  w^e  become  instrumental  in  injuring 
the  souls  of  others.  Ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  are  called  upon 
to  expound  the  word  of  God  for  the  instruction  of  their  fellow 
men,  are  under  peculiar  obligations  to  examine  thoroughly  and 
to  ascertain  fully  the  meaning  of  any  portion  of  Scripture  before 
they  presume  to  explain  it  to  or  enforce  it  upon  others.  It  is  not 
enough  in  commenting  upon  any  passage  of  Scripture  that  you 
bring  forth  many  good  and  useful  observations  and  admonitions, 
if  you  do  not  bring  out  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage,  and 
deduce  your  observations  and  admonitions  from  a  correct  interpre- 


CRITICAL  STUDY. 


679 


tation  of  it.  This  you  must  do  if  you  would  discharge  aright  your 
duty  as  the  religious  instructors  of  others,  as  able  and  faithful 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament.  Whatever  is  necessary  to  fit 
and  prepare  you  for  doing  this  must  be  acquired  and  secured  ;  and 
when  once  acquired  and  secured,  must  be  diligently,  conscien¬ 
tiously,  and  perseveringly  employed  under  a  deep  sense  of  your 
responsibility,  with  a  sincere  and  paramount  desire  to  effect  this 
object,  and  with  fervent  prayer  for  the  guidance  and  teaching  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 


LECTURE  XLVIII. 


CONFESSION,  CHAP.  I.  SEC.  9— SCRIPTURE  ITS  OWN  INTER¬ 
PRETER-DOUBLE  SENSE  —  TYPES  —  GRAMMATICAL  OR 
HISTORICAL  SENSE. 

% 

T^HAT  is  said  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  the  subject  of 
’  *  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  is  contained  in  the  ninth 
section  of  the  first  chapter,  and  is  in  these  words — ‘"The  infallible 
rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself,  and 
therefore,  where  there  is  a  question  about  the  true  and  full  sense 
of  any  Scripture  (which  is  not  manifold  but  one),  it  must  be  searched 
and  known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly.”  The  leading 
positions  taught  here  are  these — first,  that  Scripture  is  its  own 
interpreter;  second,  that  its  sense  is  not  manifold  but  one ;  and  third, 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  obscure  passages  is  to  be 
gained  chiefly  by  comparing  them  with  parallel  passages,  especially 
with  those  which  are  less  obscure.  And  a  brief  consideration  of 
these  positions  may  suggest  some  useful  practical  observations 
concerning  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  First,  then,  the  Scripture 
is  its  own  interpreter,  or  the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  is 
Scripture  itself.  Now  this  does  not  mean  that  no  other  book  but 
the  Bible  need  be  known  and  studied  by  those  who  are  desirous  to 
know  aright  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  The  statement  is  not 
intended  in  the  least  to  bear  upon  the  question,  which  has  some¬ 
times  been  agitated,  about  the  necessity  and  advantages  of  learn¬ 
ing  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  It  is  quite  true  that  men, 
merely  by  carefully  studying  the  English  Bible,  without  reading 
other  books,  may  gain  a  large  measure  of  acquaintance  with  divine 
truth,  so  as  not  only  to  become  wise  unto  salvation  themselves, 
but  to  contribute  much  to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  others.  But 


SGIUPTURE  SELF-INTERPRETING. 


581 


this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  knowledge  of  God’s 
word  that  ought  to  be  possessed  by  those  who  have  access  to  it  in 
the  original  languages,  and  with  the  means  by  which  this  know¬ 
ledge  may  be  rendered  as  extensive,  as  accurate,  and  as  complete 
as  possible.  And  a  thorough  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Bible 
in  the  original  cannot  be  acquired  without  the  perusal  and  careful 
study  of  many  other  books  besides  the  Bible  itself.  The  principle 
then  that  the  Bible  is  its  own  interpreter  does  not  imply  that  no 
other  books  are  to  be  read  and  studied  in  order  to  acquire  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  its  meaning.  It  does  not  preclude  the  use 
or  application  of  any  materials  of  whatever  kind,  or  derived  from 
whatever  source,  which  are  fitted  in  themselves,  according  to  the 
'ordinary  principles  of  man’s  constitution,  or  the  ordinary  laws  of 
philosophy  and  criticism,  to  afford  any  aid  or  assistance,  direct  or 
indirect,  for  attaining  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  its  meaning.  All 
these  on  the  contrary  it  is  the  duty  of  men,  as  they  have  the  means 
and  opportunity,  to  use  and  apply.  The  declaration  as  it  stands 
in  the  Confession  was  intended  principally  and  primarily  to  exclude 
the  application  of  tradition  and  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  and  of 
everything  out  of  the  Bible  itself,  as  authoritative  rules  or  standards 
by  which  to  judge  ultimately  and  conclusively  of  the  meaning  of 
its  statements.  Tradition  and  the  consent  of  the  Fathers  are  not, 
as  the  Church  of  Rome  maintains,  infallible  rules  of  interpretation, 
because — first,  they  do  not,  in  point  of  fact,  afford  materials  which 
can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  explanation  of  many  Scripture 
passages,  for  there  are  few  if  any  texts,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
now  a  subject  of  dispute,  in  regard  to  which  it  can  be  shewn  that 
one  particular  view  of  their  meaning  prevailed  generally  in  the 
early  church,  and  was  commonly  adopted  by  the  Fathers ;  and 
because,  second,  even  if  this  could  be  established  in  regard  to  any 
particular  passage,  there  is  no  ground  for  maintaining  that  this 
should  at  once,  and  of  itself,  be  received  as  a  sufficient  authoritative 
reason  for  adopting  that  view  of  its  import.  The  writings  of  the 
Fathers  and  the  history  of  the  primitive  church  contain  materials 
which  do  throw  some  light  upon  the  meaning  of  some  words, 
phrases,  and  statements  of  Scripture;  but  these,  like  any  other 
materials  derived  from  any  other  source,  are  just  to  be  judged  of 
and  applied  according  to  the  ordinary  principles  of  criticism  and 
interpretation,  and  are  not  in  themselves  possessed  of  any  authori- 


582 


FORTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


tative  or  determining  weight.  But  while  the  statement  in  the 
Confession  which  we  are  considering  was  principally  and  primarily 
intended  to  exclude  tradition  and  the  consent  of  the  Fathers  from 
the  position  of  an  authoritative  determining  rule  or  standard  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  embodies  at  the  same  time,  as 
we  have  already  hinted,  a  great  principle,  excluding  not  only  these 
things,  but  also,  moreover,  everything  out  of  the  Bible  itself,  from 
any  such  position  of  authority.  '‘The  infallible  rule  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Scripture,  is  Scripture  itself/’  The  revealed  will  of  God  is 
contained  there,  and  is  to  be  found  nowhere  else.  God  has  put 
it  into  our  hands,  and  required  us  to  search  it.  We  are  to  ascer¬ 
tain  the  meaning  of  its  statements,  of  the  actual  words  as  they 
stand,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated.  When  we  have  ascertained 
this,  we  have  found  the  will  of  God  on  that  point.  God  has  given 
us  no  certain  means  of  knowing  his  will  but  from  his  word,  and  no 
certain  means  of  knowing  the  meaning  of  his  word,  but  from  an 
investigation  of  the  actual  statements  which  it  contains.  He  has 
afforded  us  many  aids  and  facilities  for  attaining  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  meaning  of  his  word  ;  he  has  enjoined  us  to  use  and  improve 
all  these  with  the  utmost  diligence  and  perseverance,  in  the  use  of 
our  reason,  and  in  the  full  exercise  of  all  our  faculties,  and  he  has 
promised  the  enlightening  influences  of  his  Spirit  in  answer  to  our 
prayers.  In  the  humble  and  assiduous  use  of  these  means  he 
requires  of  us  to  study  his  word,  and  to  find  out  its  true  meaning. 
He  enjoins  us  to  concentrate  our  attention  upon  its  actual  words 
and  statements,  and  to  receive  as  coming  from  him  the  informa¬ 
tion  which  these  words  and  statements  really  convey. 

However  wide  maybe  the  range  of  study  we  may  take  in  preparing 
for  the  work  of  interpreting  and  expounding  Scripture  generally, 
to  whatever  sources  we  may  have  recourse  in  investigating  the 
true  meaning  of  any  particular  passage,  we  must  always  come 
back  to  the  actual  words  of  Scripture,  seek  to  ascertain  their  true 
and  exact  meaning,  and  there  we  must  rest.  There  is  nothing 
above  or  beyond  them,  there  is  nothing  beside  or  apart  from  them, 
that  conveys  to  us  authentically  or  authoritatively  the  will  of  God 
for  our  salvation.  The  written  word  must  be  at  once  our  starting- 
point  and  our  goal ;  and  any  firm  persuasion  or  assurance  we  can  ever 
attain  to,  that  we  have  really  found  out  the  mind  and  will  of  God, 
must  be  based  at  once  upon  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  on  our  under- 


UNITY  OF  SENSE. 


583 


standings  and  our  hearts,  and  upon  the  clear  perception  of  our 
own  minds  that  this  is  indeed  the  true  meaning,  the  actual  sense 
of  the  words  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  dictated.  It  is  indeed 
impossible  to  understand  how,  consistently  with  man’s  character 
as  a  rational  being,  and  with  the  actual  exercise  of  his  reason  in 
the  receiving  of  truth,  he  can  be  intelligently  persuaded  that  a 
particular  sense  is  the  true  meaning  of  certain  words,  unless  he  has 
liimself  examined  the  words  themselves,  applied  to  them  in  the 
exercise  of  his  own  faculties  the  ordinary  rational  principles  and 
rules  by  which  the  meaning  of  words  is  to  be  investigated  and 
ascertained,  and  come  to  a  clear  conclusion  upon  the  subject.  But 
the  principle  that  the  Scripture  is  its  own  interpreter  implies  not 
only  negatively  that  nothing  out  of  Scripture,  neither  tradition 
nor  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  nor  anything  else,  is  to  exert  an 
authoritative  weight  in  determining  our  conclusions  as  to  what  its 
meaning  is ;  but  also  moreover,  positively,  that  Scripture  itself 
contains  abundant  materials  for  aiding  and  assisting  us  in  the 
interpretation  of  its  own  obscurer  passages,  and  that  to  these 
materials  furnished  by  Scripture  itself  must  the  appeal  ultimately 
be  made  in  all  questions  that  may  arise  as  to  the  meaning  of  par¬ 
ticular  statements.  The  illustration  of  this  topic  falls  naturally 
under  the  third  position  which  we  have  mentioned  as  suggested 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  ;  and  in  the  meantime  we  proceed 
to  advert  to  the  one  which  stands  second  in  order,  and  which  is 
introduced  parenthetically,  viz.,  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  not 
manifold  but  one.  This  position  too,  like  the  former  one,  was 
principally  and  primarily  intended  as  a  denial  of  a  common 
Popish  doctrine;  though,  like  it  too,  it  contains  an  important 
general  principle  of  extensive  practical  application.  The  Papists 
have  usually  contended  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  not  one,  but 
manifold,  or  at  least  fourfold.  Their  views  upon  this  point  are 
thus  explained  by  their  great  champion.  Cardinal  Bellarmine.^ 
He  says  that  it  is  a  peculiar  property  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  as 
being  the  word  of  God,  to  have  two  senses,  the  literal  or  historical, 
and  the  spiritual  or  mystical ;  and  of  the  spiritual  sense,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  literal,  he  makes  three  divisions,  viz.,  the  allegoric, 
when  the  words  of  Scripture,  especially  in  the  Old  Testament, 
signify,  besides  their  literal  sense,  something  connected  with  Christ 

’  De  Verho  Dei,  lib.  viii.  chap.  iii.  p.  511. 


584 


FORTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


and  his  church  ;  the  tropologic,  when  words  and  actions  are  applied 
not  literally  to  signify  something  connected  with  moral  conduct  5 
and  the  anagogic,  when  they  are  applied  to  signify  something 
connected  with  eternal  life.  These  ill  defined  and  baseless  distinc¬ 
tions  are  chiefly  applied  by  the  Romanists  for  the  purpose  of 
trying  to  render  the  Scripture  obscure  and  uncertain.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  enter  into  anything  like  a  formal  explanation  and 
exposure  of  them.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  statement  of 
the  Confession,  viz.,  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  not  manifold,  but 
one,  was  just  intended  to  deny  these  Popish  notions  upon  this 
subjeci,  and  to  deny  nothing  else.  There  is  no  reason  why  any 
one  should  hesitate  about  subscribing  to  the  statement  of  the 
Confession,  though  he  should  hold  what  is  commonly  called  the 
double  sense  of  prophecy — first,  because  historically  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  statement  was  not  intended  as  a  denial  of  that 
doctrine,  but  merely  of  the  Popish  principle  to  which  we  have 

t 

referred  :  and  second,  because  the  doctrine  of  a  double  sense  of 
prophecy  is  not  really  inconsistent  with  the  words  in  which  the 
statement  of  the  Confession  is  expressed.  What  is  commonly 
called  the  double  sense  in  prophecy  is  not  properly  a  double  sense 
of  a  statement,  but  a  double  reference  or  application  of  a  statement 
which  has  but  one  sense. 

The  advocates  of  what  is  called  a  double  sense  contend  that 
there  are  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  which  had  a  fulfilment 
in  some  person  or  transaction  in  Jewish  history  soon  after  they 
were  originally  uttered,  and  which  also  had  a  fulfilment  in  the 
person  and  history  of  our  Saviour.  But  they  do  not  contend  that 
the  words  in  which  the  predictions  are  expressed  have  two  different 
senses  or  meanings,  or  that  in  interpreting  and  ascertaining  their 
meaning  anything  else  is  to  be  done  but  to  ascertain  their  literal 
meaning,  or  that  any  other  means  are  to  be  employed  than  just 
the  ordinary  grammatical  and  critical  rules  of  investigation.  The 
sense  of  the  words  is  one,  though  the  reference  or  application  may 
be  twofold.  It  can  scarcely  be  denied  that  the  Holy  Spirit  might 
dictate  certain  words  which,  literally  and  grammatically  interpreted 
— i.e.  though  having  but  one  sense  or  signification,  and  that  the 
literal  or  grammatical  one — might  apply  equally  to  and  be  fulfilled 
in  two  different  transactions.  This  is  what  is  alleged  to  have 
been  done  in  some  instances  by  the  advocates  of  what  is  called 


DOUBLE  SENSE  OF  PROPHECY. 


585 


a  double  sense,  who  however  attach  only  one  sense  to  the  actual 
Avords  in  which  the  prediction  is  expressed.  They  adopt  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  double  sense  upon  this  general  ground,  that  they  find 
some  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  with  respect  to  which  they 
are  persuaded,  not  from  an  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  the 
actual  words  of  the  prediction,  but  from  the  context  describing 
the  circumstances  in  which,  and  the  object  for  which  it  was 
delivered,  that  it  was  intended  to  apply  to  and  be  fulfilled  in  some 
event  soon  to  take  place  in  J ewish  history ;  while  they  also  find  in 
the  New  Testament  authority  for  believing  that  this  same  predic¬ 
tion  was  intended  to  apply  to  and  be  fulfilled  in  Christ,  the  one 
sense  of  the  actual  words  of  the  prediction,  critically  and  correctly 
interpreted  being,  as  they  think,  equally  applicable  to  both.  There 
is  here,  you  see,  no  ascription  of  a  double  sense  to  the  words  of 
the  prophecy,  though  the  doctrine  is  commonly  called  by  that 
name,  but  merely  a  conviction  upon  independent  and  external 
rounds  that  the  one  sense  of  the  words  admits  of  and  was  intended 

O 

to  have  a  twofold  reference  or  application.  You  need  then  have 
no  hesitation  in  adopting  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  that  the 
sense  of  Scripture  is  not  manifold  but  one,  although  you  should 
come  on  examining  this  question  to  entertain  the  view  of  what  is 
commonly  called  the  double  sense  of  prophecy.  In  regard  to  the 
reality  of  what  is  understood  of  the  double  sense  of  prophecy,  I 
may  say  that  the  subject  is  attended  with  very  considerable  diffi¬ 
culty,  but  that  I  am  inclined  upon  the  whole  to  adopt  it,  i.e.  I 
think  there  are  some  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  which  are 
proved  by  the  context  to  refer  to  events  which  took  place  soon 
after  they  were  uttered,  and  are  also  proved  by  the  testimony  of 
the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  refer  to  Christ,  while 
the  one  sense  of  the  words  of  the  predictions  themselves  applies 
equally  to  both.  We  have  stated  what  this  position,  that  the 
sense  of  Scripture  is  not  manifold  but  one,  was  intended  to  deny, 
and  we  have  shewn  you  in  one  important  instance  what  it  was  not 
intended  to  deny  ;  but  it  may  also  be  fairly  regarded  as  teaching 
some  important  practical  truths.  The  sense  of  Scripture  is  one. 
This  one  sense  of  Scripture  is  of  course  the  literal  or  grammatical 
sense,  or  that  which  is  brought  out  by  a  careful  and  diligent 
application  of  the  ordinary  principles  and  rules  of  philology, 
grammar,  and  criticism  to  the  investigation  of  its  meaning.  This 


586 


FORTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE, 


principle,  that  the  one  sense  of  Scripture  is  the  literal  or  gram¬ 
matical  sense,  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  regard  to  the  distinction 
between  the  proper  and  the  figurative  use  or  sense  of  words, 
although  the  proper  as  distinguished  from  the  figurative  is  some¬ 
times  called  the  literal  meaning.  In  the  Bible,  as  in  all  other 
boohs,  words  are  sometimes  used  properly  and  sometimes  figur¬ 
atively  or  tropically.  The  question  whether  in  a  particular  case  a 
word  be  used  properly  or  figuratively  is  at  all  times  a  proper 
subject  of  investigation,  and  the  investigation  in  some  instances  is 
attended  with  considerable  difficulty,  and  accordingly  the  principles 
and  rules  to  be  applied  in  ascertaining  and  interpreting  the  tropes 
or  figures  of  Scripture  under  the  different  heads  of  metaphors, 
parables,  allegories,  &c.,  occupy  an  important  and  prominent  place 
in  treatises  on  general  hermeneutics.  Still  it  is  a  subject  whicli 
comes  fairly  and  fully  within  the  province  of  philology  and 
criticism,  to  be  regulated  by  principles  common  to  language, 
though  modified  by  circumstances  peculiar  to  the  languages  of 
Scripture.  And  everything  bearing  upon  the  decision  of  the 
question,  whether  a  word  in  a  particular  passage  is  to  be  interpreted 
properly  or  figuratively,  and  if  figuratively,  what  it  truly  means,  is 
thus  fairly  comprehended  in  the  investigation  of  the  literal  or  gram¬ 
matical  sense,  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  principles  and  laws 
of  language  and  criticism.  Neither  is  the  principle  that  the  one 
sense  of  Scripture  is  the  literal  or  grammatical  at  all  inconsistent 
with  there  being  many  things  described  or  spoken  of  in  Scripture 
which  are  and  were  intended  to  be  types,  symbols,  or  emblems  of 
other  things. 

Types  or  symbols  are  not  statements  to  be  interpreted,  but 
they  are  persons  or  facts  or  observances  which  resemble  other 
persons,  facts  or  observances,  and  were  intended  to  bring  these 
other  things  before  our  minds,  and  to  assist  us  in  understanding 
and  realising  them  ;  and  in  regard  to  them,  as  well  as  all  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  our  duty  is,  and  our  object  should  be,  just  to  find  out 
the  literal  grammatical  meaning  of  the  words  which  describe  or 
refer  to  them.  As  to  their  typical  or  symbolical  character  and 
application,  this  can  be  certainly  learnt  only  from  the  statements 
of  Scripture  itself,  understood  in  their  literal  or  grammatical 
sense.  It  is  not  enough  to  warrant  us  in  regarding  anything  as 
a  type  of  another  that  we  can  trace  some  resemblance  between  it 


TYPES. 


587 


and  what  we  regard  as  its  antitype.  We  must  have  some  evidence 
from  Scripture  that  God  intended  the  one  to  be  a  type  of  the  other, 
and  has  thereby  authorised  us  to  use  and  employ  what  is  said  in 
Scripture  about  the  one,  for  enabling  us  to  form  clear  and  impres¬ 
sive  conceptions  of  the  other;  and  unless  this  rule  be  carefully 
observed,  men  are  in  much  danger  of  indulging  their  imagination 
in  tracing  out  resemblances  of  their  own  invention,  or  what 
is  commonly  called  spiritualising  or  allegorising  Scripture,  a 
practice  commonly  attended  with  much  more  injury  than  benefit 
both  to  sound  knowledge  and  piety.  When  men  set  themselves 
to  find  out  resemblances  between  one  person  or  fact  described  in 
Scripture,  and  some  other  person  or  fact  also  described  there, 
they  are  very  apt  to  overlook  or  disregard  the  rules  by  which  the 
investigation  of  the  literal  or  grammatical  sense  of  the  statements 
concerning  them  ought  to  be  regulated,  and  to  be  led  to  treat  the 
Scriptures  as  if  they  had  no  certain  definite  meaning,  and  to  act 
as  if  men  were  at  liberty  to  turn  and  twist  them  as  they  choose. 
There  is  quite  enough  in  Scripture,  literally  and  grammatically 
understood,  to  instruct  and  to  edify,  without  men  exerting  their 
imaginations  to  put  upon  it  constructions  and  to  make  of  it 
applications  which  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  words  them¬ 
selves  does  not  suggest,  and  which  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dictated  it  ever  intended.  It  is  of  great 
importance  that  you  should  be  deeply  impressed  with  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  but  one,  and  that  this  one 
sense  is  to  be  discovered  and  ascertained  only  by  a  careful  and 
exact  investigation  of  the  literal  and  grammatical  meaning  of  the 
words  as  they  stand.  There  they  are  ;  they  are  God's  words.  He 
has  given  them  to  you,  that  by  ascertaining  their  meaning  you 
may  know  his  will ;  and  therefore  all  the  powers  of  your  mind, 
wielding  and  applying  all  the  materials  which  are  fitted  to  con¬ 
tribute  to  effect  this  object,  should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  them. 
Some  persons,  under  the  pretence  of  exalting  the  honour  and 
dignity  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  have  laid  down  the 
principle  that  the  Scripture  has  all  the  senses  of  which  its  words 
are  capable;  and  then  in  following  out  this  principle,  have  exerted 
their  ingenuity  in  wresting  and  torturing  every  passage  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  out  of  it  a  variety  of  meanings.  This  is 
certainly  doing  no  real  honour  to  Scripture,  for  it  is  just 


588 


FORTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE. 


representing  it  as  utterly  unfit  for  the  purpose  which  we  know  it 
was  intended  to  serve,  viz.,  to  convey  to  us  distinctly,  authentically, 
and  infallibly  the  will  of  God. 

The  literal  meaning  of  the  statements  of  Scripture,  which  is  the 
one  and  the  only  true  sense,  is  very  generally  known  in  modern 
times  by  the  name  of  the  grammatico-historical  sense.  This 
compound  word  is  intended  to  convey  these  ideas :  that  the  state¬ 
ments  of  Scripture  are  to  be  interpreted  by  an  exact  investigation 
of  the  meaning  of  the  words,  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of 
philology  and  grammar ;  and  that  the  actual  meaning  of  the 
vocables,  and  the  actual  import  of  the  phrases  and  constructions 
occurring  in  the  books  of  Scripture,  are  to  be  ascertained  by 
testimony  as  matters  of  historical  fact.  This  is  undoubtedly  a 
sound  principle.  There  is  no  certain  way  of  knowing  the  import 
of  statements  in  a  dead  language,  but  by  ascertaining  as  a  matter 
of  historical  fact  what  meaning  was  actually  attached  to  the 
words,  phrases,  and  combinations  of  words ;  and  this  points  out 
the  path  which  all  who  would  thoroughly  investigate  for  them¬ 
selves  the  meaning  of  works  written  in  a  dead  language  must 
pursue,  illustrating  at  the  same  time  the  difficulty  of  the  labour, 
and  the  precision  with  which  its  results  ought  to  be  sifted  and 
applied. 

It  is  right  however  to  warn  you  of  a  sense  in  which  the  phrase, 
the  historical  sense  or  historical  interpretation  is  often  employed 
by  German  writers,  in  which  the  principle  it  indicates  is  erroneous 
and  dangerous,  and  in  which  it  is  applied  by  them,  as  it  is  certainly 
fitted  to  undermine  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  to  deprive  it 
of  all  fitness  or  competency  of  serving  now  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  It  is  in  substance  this,  that  we  are  not  to  seek  directly 
and  primarily  in  investigating,  for  instance,  the  meaning  of  the 
discourses  of  Christ  and  of  the  epistles  of  the  apostles,  what  were  the 
ideas  which  they  really  intended  to  convey,  and  which  their  words 
correctly  interpreted  express,  but  only  what  were  the  notions 
which  their  hearers,  with  all  their  ignorance  and  prejudices,  were 
likely  to  attach  to  their  statements,  assuming  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles  knew  nothing  more  than  those  whom  they  addressed, 
could  not  rise  above  the  notions  that  generally  prevailed  around 
them,  and  could  not  have  intended  to  enlighten  their  minds  and 
to  correct  their  errors.  They  then  try  to  find  out  historically. 


MEANING  NUT  AEBITnAItY. 


589 


though  they  are  often  satished  with  very  scanty  evidence^  for  none 
are  more  credulous  than  infidels,  what  were  the  then  prevalent 
notions  upon  many  of  the  subjects  spoken  of,  and  make  these,  or 
their  own  impressions  regarding  them,  and  not  the  grammatical 
meaning  of  the  words,  the  standard  of  interpretation.  It  is  stated 
and  briefly  though  conclusively  exposed  in  Davidson’s  Sacred 
Hermeneutics,  pp.  226,  227.  It  is  also  admirably  exposed  by 
Titmann  in  his  preface  to  his  Commentary  upon  John  recently 
translated  in  the  44th  vol.  of  the  Bihlicat  Cabinet,  and  by  Storr 
in  his  Dissertatio  de  Sensu  Historico  in  the  1st  vol.  of  his 
Opuscula  Academica,  where  also  the  true  nature  and  foundations 
of  the  grammatical  or  grammatico-historical  interpretation  of 
Scripture  are  expounded  and  established.  You  should  ever 
remember  that  every  word,  every  phrase,  every  clause,  and  every 
'Sentence  in  Scripture  has  a  meaning  ;  that  this  meaning  is  one ; 
that  God  gave  it  this  meaning ;  and  that  it  is  the  literal  or  gram¬ 
matical  sense  of  the  words  ;  and  that  it  is  our  duty  to  ascertain  it 
as  far  as  possible  accurately  and  certainly.  The  meaning  is  not  in 
any  instance  indefinite  nor  arbitrary  in  itself.  There  may  be 
passages  the  meaning  of  which  after  all  our  investigations  we  may 
not  be  very  sure  that  we  have  ascertained  ;  but  we  are  not  on 
that  account  to  doubt  that  they  have,  and  were  intended  to  have, 
a  meaning,  and  to  convey  to  those  who  may  ascertain  it  some 
definite  information.  The  meaning  of  no  passage  of  Scripture  is 
arbitrary.  We  have  no  right  to  put  upon  any  statement  of  the 
Bible  any  meaning  we  choose,  any  meaning  that  may  suit  or 
favour  our  own  inclinations,  fancies,  or  prepossessions.  We  must 
not  bring  our  notions  and  wishes  to  the  Scriptures,  to  get  coun¬ 
tenance  for  them,  or  to  employ  them  as  the  standard  by  which  we 
judge  of  the  import  of  its  statements.  We  must  come  to  the 
Scripture  to  investigate  carefully,  in  the  use  of  appropriate  means, 
the  true  meaning  of  its  declarations  ;  and  we  should  not  forget  that 
the  meaning  of  every  word,  phrase,  clause,  and  sentence  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  really  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  to  be  settled  by  an 
impartial,  and,  if  necessary,  by  a  deliberate  and  persevering  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  appropriate  evidence  according  to  distinct  and  well- 
established  rules.  If  this  truth  were  realised  and  recollected,  it 
would  impress  us  with  a  deeper  sense  than  is  commonly  entertained 
of  the  importance  and  difficulty  of  the  critical  study  of  the  Bible  ; 


590 


FORTY-EIGHTH  LECTURE, 


it  would  put  us  upon  the  right  road  for  investigating  and  ascer¬ 
taining  its  true  import.  It  would  tend  to  preserve  us  in  our  study 
of  the  Scriptures  from  carelessness,  laziness,  and  error,  chaining 
us  down  as  it  were  to  a  mode  of  operation  which  requires  of  us 
cautious,  careful,  persevering  labour,  a  constant  watch  over  our 
own  tendencies  and  prepossessions,  the  diligent  application  of  all 
our  powers  and  faculties,  and  the  conscientious  employment  of  all 
our  resources.  And  we  may  be  assured  of  this,  that  if  we  are  at 
the  same  time  duly  sensible  of  our  dependence  upon  the  enlighten¬ 
ing  agency  of  the  Spirit  for  the  right  understanding  of  his  word, 
and  abound  in  prayer  for  his  guidance,  we  shall  not  the  less 
fully  receive  the  promised  blessing  from  God  because  we  are 
humbly,  assiduously,  and  perseveringly  engaged  in  the  use  of  those 
means  which  are  fitted  in  their  own  nature  as  means  to  produce 
the  desired  result. 


LECTURE  XLIX. 


CONTEXT— PARALLEL  PASSAGES— ANALOGY  OF  FAITH. 


^PHE  doctrine  taught  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  chapter  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  the  subject  of  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible  may  be  embodied  in  three  propositions — first,  that 
the  Bible  is  its  own  interpreter,  or  that  the  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scripture  is  Scripture  itself ;  second,  that  the 
sense  of  Scripture  is  not  manifold,  but  one  ;  and  third,  that  diffi¬ 
culties  that  may  arise  about  the  meaning  of  particular  passages 
are  to  be  removed  chiedy  by  an  examination  and  comparison  of 
other  passages  of  Scripture,  where  the  same  or  similar  words, 
phrases,  or  constructions  occur,  and  where  the  same  or  similar 
subjects  are  treated  of,  and  are  perhaps  more  clearly  expressed. 
In  last  lecture  we  explained  and  illustrated  the  first  two  of  these 
positions,  shewing  you  what  were  the  errors  against  which  they 
were  intended  to  be  directed,  what  are  the  great  general  principles 
of  positive  truth  which  they  assert  or  involve,  and  what  are  the 
practical  lessons  which  they  suggest  to  guide  us  in  the  careful 
study  and  correct  interpretation  of  the  word  of  God.  We  have 
now  to  advert  to  the  third  position.  Now,  this  position  obviously 
directs  our  attention  to  two  important  topics,  usually  discussed  in 
works  on  hermeneutics  under  the  heads  of  parallel  passages  and 
the  analogy  of  faith.  The  topics  we  have  already  considered  have 
borne  chiefly  upon  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  meaning 
of  words,  phrases,  and  constructions,  viewed  by  themselves,  is  to 
be  investigated  and  ascertained,  by  the  help  of  the  information 
which  is  usually  derived,  in  the  first  instance,  from  grammars  and 
lexicons,  but  which  as  we  shewed  you,  is  not  to  be  received 
implicitly  upon  the  authority  of  grammarians  and  lexicographers, 
since  there  is  a  higher  standard  to  which  the  ultimate  appeal 


592 


FOllTY-NINTlI  LECTURE. 


must  be  made,  even  the  actual  usage  of  the  language  itself 
as  exhibited  in  the  works  of  those  who  understood  and  employed 
it.  The  highest  authority  indeed  for  settling  the  meaning  of  any 
word,  phrase,  or  construction  occurring  in  a  writing  in  a  dead 
lansfuao^e  is  that  of  the  writing  itself,  or  of  its  author.  And  even 
when  the  writing  itself  does  not  give  us  any  formal  statement  of 
the  meaning  in  which  words,  phrases,  and  constructions  are 
employed  in  it,  there  is  often  much  information  of  a  pretty  certain 
and  satisfactory  kind  to  be  gathered  indirectly  from  the  context, 
from  what  goes  before  and  comes  after.  And  a  careful  and  exact 
scrutiny  of  the  context  and  of  the  scope  of  the  passage  ought 
never  to  be  omitted  in  investigating  the  meaning  of  any  passage, 
the  import  of  which  is  a  subject  of  difficulty  and  dispute.  Books 
on  hermeneutics  usually  give  some  rules  or  directions  to  assist 
students  of  the  Scriptures  in  investigating  the  context  and  scope 
of  the  passage ;  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case  they  are  somewhat 
vague  and  indefinite,  and  of  no  very  great  practical  utility.  The 
importance  and  necessity  of  this  process,  and  the  way  of  conduct¬ 
ing  it  so  that  its  advantages  may  be  fully  realised,  are  best 
illustrated  by  examples,  and  these  our  time  does  not  permit  us  to 
adduce.  Mere  rules  are  not  here  of  any  great  practical  benefit. 
A  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  what  has  sometimes  been  called 
general  or  universal  grammar,  acquired  by  a  careful  study  of  a 
variety  of  languages,  combined  with  discernment  and  discrimi¬ 
nation,  and  the  tact  and  skill  acquired  by  experience,  will  alone 
enable  you  to  conduct  this  process  aright,  and  to  derive  from  it 
the  important  advantages  which  it  is  fitted  to  confer.  It  is 
however  to  what  are  commonly  called  the  comparison  of  parallel 
passages,  and  the  analogy  of  faith,  that  the  position  we  are  at 
present  considering  more  immediately  directs  our  attention. 
These  topics  are  also  usually  discussed  in  works  on  hermeneutics, 
though  by  a  large  class  of  writers  the  latter,  viz.,  what  is  commonly 
called  the  analogy  of  faith,  is  either  neglected  altogether,  or  very 
lightly  regarded.  The  importance  of  the  comparison  of  parallel 
passages  is  based  upon  these  general  considerations — first,  that 
the  highest  authority  in  determining  the  meaning  of  any  state¬ 
ment  is  that  of  the  author  himself,  or  of  the  writing  in  which  it 
occurs  ;  and  second,  that  the  more  frequent  cases  we  have  of  his 
using  the  same  words,  phrases,  or  constructions,  or  of  his  expressing 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES. 


593 


the  same  or  similar  sentiments  in  somewhat  different  connections, 
and  with  somewhat  different  accompaniments — the  better  means 
we  have  of  ascertaining  their  true  meaning  and  import,  i.e.  the 
sense  in  which  the  author  actually  uses  them.  And  while  the  other 
parts  of  the  same  writing  where  the  statement  occurs,  the  meaning 
of  which  we  are  desirous  to  ascertain,  and  next,  any  other  writing 
of  the  same  author,  has  the  highest  claim  upon  our  attention,  other 
similar  writings  and  of  the  same  period,  composed  by  men  placed 
in  similar  circumstances,  and  directed  to  similar  objects,  are  also 
fitted  to  afford  us  important  assistance  in  interpreting.  The 
subject  of  the  comparison  of  parallel  passages  affords  somewhat 
more  scope  for  rules  and  directions  that  may  be  of  some  use  in 
assisting  the  student  of  the  Bible  than  that  of  the  context  and 
scope  of  the  passage  admits  of,  though  here  as  in  the  former  case 
the  subject  can  be  best  illustrated  by  examples ;  and  it  holds  true 
to  a  large  extent  that  no  mere  rules  or  directions,  without  certain 
mental  endowments,  natural  and  acquired,  will  be  of  much  avail 
in  applying  aright  this  important  source  of  knowledge  for  ascer¬ 
taining  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  parallelism  of  passages  has  been  divided  into  two  branches, 
verbal  and  real,  or  parallelism  of  words  and  of  things.  In  regard 
to  words,  any  passage  may  be  said  to  be  a  parallel  one  where  the 
same  word  or  phrase  occurs,  and  in  regard  to  any  important  word 
of  doubtful  import,  the  only  way  of  attaining  to  a  full  knowledge 
and  a  thorough  certainty  about  its  meaning  or  meanings  is  to 
examine  and  compare  all  the  passages  in  Scripture  in  which  the 
word  or  any  of  its  parts  or  derivatives  occur,  and  to  ascertain  and 
estimate  the  light  which  the  adjuncts  or  accompaniments  of  the 
word  or  phrase  in  each  instance  of  its  occurrence  may  throw  upon 
its  meaning  and  application.  The  great  practical  auxiliary  in  this 
department  of  work  is  of  course  a  concordance  to  the  original 
languages  of  Scripture,  though,  as  I  mentioned  to  you  before,  some 
lexicons  to  the  Greek  Testament  are  so  constructed  as  virtually  to 
serve  the  purpose  of  a  concordance,  with  the  superadded  benefit  of 
the  commentary  of  the  lexicographer,  and  any  additional  informa¬ 
tion  or  authorities  he  may  have  collected  from  other  sources,  to 
aid  in  establishing  the  meaning  of  the  word  or  phrase.  Concord¬ 
ances  to  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  are  scarce  and  expensive ; 

2  p 


594 


FORTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


but  a  concordauce  to  the  Greek  of  the  Testament;  published  in 
this  country  by  Bagster,  who  has  done  so  much  in  publishing  the 
Bible  in  many  languages,  is  cheap  and  accessible,  and  ought 
undoubtedly  to  be  procured  and  employed  by  every  one  Avho  seeks 
to  be  thoroughly  versant  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament.’ 
What  is  called  real  parallelism,  or  parallelism  of  things  or  ideas,  is 
attended  with  greater  difficulty,  as  we  have  not  here  the  palpable 
identity  of  the  word  or  phrase  to  guide  us.  There  are  passages 
where  the  same  word  or  phrase  occurs  as  in  the  one  under 
consideration,  where  yet  there  is  no  identity  or  similarity  in  the 
subject  treated  of,  or  in  the  thought  or  sentiment  expressed,  and 
where  of  course  the  information  that  may  be  derived  from  the 
comparison  can  respect  only  the  meaning  of  the  particular  word 
or  phrase.  And  there  are  passages  where,  though  the  same  word 
or  phrase  may  not  occur,  the  same  subject  may  be  treated,  and  a 
thought  or  sentiment  that  is  manifestly  in  some  respects  similar 
may  be  expressed.  And  hence,  in  regard  to  this  latter  class,  it 
becomes  a  matter  of  importance  to  attempt  to  ascertain  or  deter¬ 
mine  whether  the  passage  be  parallel  or  not,  or  rather  to  ascertain 
what  the  passages  are  which  are  really  parallel  to  the  one  the 
meaning  of  which  we  may  be  investigating.  And  some  books  on 
hermeneutics  profess  to  give  rules  and  directions  for  assisting  us 
in  deciding  what  sort  of  passages  are  really  to  be  considered  as 
parallel,  and  ought  to  be  examined  and  compared  with  the  view 
of  throwing  light  upon  the  one  to  which  our  attention  may  be 
directed.  These  rules  are  not  of  any  very  great  practical  utility, 
for  in  this  whole  process  of  selecting  and  comparing  parallel 
passages  the  appeal  must  be  ultimately  to  the  dictates  of  sound 
reason  and  common  sense,  and  men  must  be  directed  by  their  own 
sagacity,  discernment,  and  skill,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  It  is  impossible  however  to  overrate  the  importance  and 
advantages  of  a  careful,  patient,  and  persevering  examination 
and  comparison  of  parallel  passages  in  order  to  a  correct  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  Indeed,  we 
may  say  that  except  through  the  diligent,  unwearied,  and  habitual 
prosecution  of  this  process,  no  real  certain  and  well-grounded 
knowledge  of  the  word  of  God  can  be  acquired.  It  is  quite 
manifest  from  the  whole  structure  of  the  word  of  God  that  its 


^  Sclimidt’s  Concordance. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES. 


595 


author  intended  that  it  should  be  studied  in  this  way,  and  that  he 
has  virtually  made  a  knowledge  of  it  dependent  upon  each  man 
for  himself  adopting  and  carrying  through  this  mode  of  investiga¬ 
tion.  It  does  not  contain  anything  like  a  systematic  classification 
or  arrangement  of  information  on  any  of  the  subjects  which  it 
brings  under  our  notice. 

The  principal  subjects  which  the  word  of  God  was  intended  to 
make  known  to  us  are  scattered  over  its  pages  and  presented  to  us 
in  different  aspects,  more  clearly,  more  fully,  more  directly  and 
formally,  or  the  reverse,  and  in  different  connections  and  with 
different  accompaniments,  in  the  various  passages  where  they  occur. 
And  this  of  course  was  arranged  and  effected  by  God  in  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  his  manifold  wisdom  in  order  to  serve  important  and  useful 
purposes  in  connection  with  the  great  end  for  which  his  word  was 
given.  It  manifestly  requires  of  us,  if  we  would  know  fully  and 
certainly  the  revealed  will  of  God,  that  we  seek  to  collect  together 
and  compare  with  each  other  the  different  passages  in  which  the 
same  subject  is  adverted  to,  and  in  which  the  same  or  a  similar 
thought  or  sentiment  is  expressed ;  whence  we  infer  that  it  was 
God’s  purpose  that  we  should  do  this ;  and  from  this  again  we  infer 
that  in  carrying  on  this  process,  and  in  prosecuting  it  in  a  right 
spirit,  we  have  special  reason  to  expect  the  assistance  of  him  who 
dictated  and  fashioned  the  written  word.  We  know  fully  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  upon  any  particular  topic,  either  of  doctrine  or 
duty,  only  when  we  have  examined  and  investigated  the  meaning 
of  all  the  different  portions  of  his  word  that  bear  upon  it,  and  are 
able  to  state  the  joint  or  combined  result  of  them  all.  This  is  an 
important  consideration  that  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of,  more 
especially  as  the  history  of  the  church  so  fully  and  so  impressively 
shews  us  that  many  errors  and  heresies  have  arisen  from  partial 
views  of  divine  truth,  from  disproportionate  attention  being  given 
to  some  statements  of  God’s  word,  without  investigating  and  com¬ 
paring  other  statements  which  also  bear  upon  the  elucidation  of 
the  same  topic.  The  subject  of  the  comparison  of  parallel  passages, 
liowever,  as  a  means  of  interpretation,  i.e.  as  forming  a  subject  of 
investigation  in  exegetical  as  distinguished  from  systematic  theo¬ 
logy,  bears  rather  upon  this  more  limited  object,  viz.,  how  an 
examination  of  parallel  passages  assists  in  ascertaining  the  full  and 
exact  meaning  of  some  one  particular  passage,  the  import  of  which 


596 


FORTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


we  wish  to  ascertain.  And  in  regard  to  this  point  it  may  be  con¬ 
fidently  affirmed,  from  a  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the 
voice  of  experience,  that  the  process  is  indispensably  of  imperative 
obligation,  and  that  its  advantages  are  so  great  that  they  cannot 
be  exaggerated,  and  can  be  appreciated  fully  only  by  those  who 
have  tried  it.  The  assistance  to  which  you  will  most  naturally 
have  recourse  in  prosecuting  this  work  is  that  of  a  Bible  furnished 
with  a  collection  of  marginal  references  to  parallel  passages.  But 
you  must  remember  that  you  are  still  to  exercise  your  own  judg¬ 
ment  as  to  the  parallelism  of  the  passages  thus  pointed  out  to  you, 
their  bearing  upon  the  passage  more  immediately  under  considera¬ 
tion,  and  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  ought  to  be  applied 
for  elucidating  its  meaning  and  bringing  out  its  real  import ;  for 
you  will  soon  find,  if  you  take  any  of  the  more  copious  collections 
of  references  to  parallel  passages,  that  many  of  them  are  ill- 
selected  and  far-fetched,  and  serve  rather  to  perplex  you  than  to 
throw  any  light  upon  the  point  you  are  investigating  ;  while  at  the 
same  time  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  merely  by  a  skilful  selec¬ 
tion  of  references  to  passages  alleged  to  be  parallel  men  may 
insinuate  interpretations  and  views  of  divine  truth  which  ought 
not  to  be  received  without  careful  investigation.^ 

We  have  now  only  to  advert  to  what  is  commonly  called  the 
analogy  of  faith,  as  bearing  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
The  phrase  is  taken  from  Romans  xii.  6 — “  Having  therefore  gifts 
differing  according  to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us,  whether 
prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith  — 
xara  uvaXoyiav  rJjg  ‘Tri'jrsojg.  It  does  not  seem,  however,  to  be 
here  employed  by  the  apostle  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is 
commonly  used  in  hermeneutics.  The  apostle  seems  to  mean  by 
it  the  measure  or  amount  of  faith  which  any  person  endowed  with 
the  gift  of  prophecy  possessed,  i.e.  the  measure  of  knowledge  of 
divine  things  which  had  been  supernaturally  communicated  to 
him,  and  which  he  had  apprehended  by  faith.  Among  writers  on 
hermeneutics,  it  is  commonly  employed  to  designate  the  general 
scheme  or  system  of  divine  truth,  in  its  great  principles;  and 
when  it  is  set  forth  as  a  principle  or  rule  that  ought  to  guide  us 
in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  what  is  meant  is,  that  the 
interpretation  of  particular  passages  ought  to  be  in  accordance 
’  Horsley.  Scott,  Preface  to  Bible,  Postscript. 


JiVJZOGF  OF  FAITH. 


597 


with  the  general  scheme  of  truth  taught  in  the  Bible,  or  at  least 
should  not  contradict  it.  This,  as  a  general  rule,  is  an  obvious 
principle  of  common  sense  and  fairness.  It  is  usually  applied  by 
interpreters  even  to  ordinary  human  writings — i.e.  if  an  obscure 
passage  is  met  with  in  any  author,  the  precise  meaning  of  which 
it  is  not  easy  to  discover,  it  is  reckoned  fair  and  reasonable  that 
one  of  the  different  possible  or  probable  interpretations  should 
be  preferred  which  is  most  accordant  wdth  the  known  views 
and  sentiments  of  the  author ;  or  at  least,  if  possible,  one  that 
shall  not  contradict  or  oppose  them.  What  is  thus  held  right  and 
reasonable  in  the  interpretation  of  ordinary  human  writings,  is 
equally  reasonable  and  incumbent  in  the  interpretation  of  Scrip¬ 
ture;  and  indeed  all  the  more  so  because  of  their  inspiration. 
When  the  Scriptures  have  once  been  proved  to  have  been  given 
by  divine  inspiration,  this  great  truth  should  be  ever  remembered 
and  applied  in  laying  down  the  principles  by  which  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  them  ought  to  be  regulated,  and  in  actually  interpreting 
them,  as  well  as  in  applying  the  views  which  a  correct  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  them  brings  out.  We  are  called  upon  to  have  respect  to 
the  analogy  of  faith  in  interpreting  Scripture,  not  merely  upon 
general  principles  held  fair  and  reasonable  in  regard  to  ordinary 
human  writings,  and  not  merely  even  upon  the  ground  that  it  is 
all  inspired,  and  must  therefore  be  all  consistent  with  itself,  but 
likewise  upon  this  additional  and  more  special  ground,  that  while 
it  is  the  undoubted  duty  of  every  man  to  whom  God  has  given 
his  word  to  acquire  as  correct  and  extensive  a  knowledge  as  he 
possibly  can  of  the  meaning  of  all  its  statements ;  yet  it  was 
one  great  leading  design  of  God,  in  inspiring  and  communicating 
his  word,  to  make  known  to  men  some  great  fundamental  views 
of  doctrine  and  duty,  which  are  most  clearly  revealed  in  it,  and 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  certainly  teaches  to  all  to  whom  he  com¬ 
municates  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  which  is 
eternal  life.  Until  men  have  been  brought  to  know  and  under¬ 
stand  aright  these  first  principles  of  God’s  oracles,  they  have  no 
real  knowledge  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  all  their  labours  and 
efforts  in  interpreting  them  will  be  only  groping  in  the  dark. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  when  their  eyes  have  once  been  opened 
by  the  Spirit  to  discern  these  fundamental  principles  in  the 
Scriptures,  they  will  feel  not  only  warranted,  but  constrained  to 


598 


FORTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


bear  them  continually  in  remembrance,  and  faithfully  to  apply 
them  in  the  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  particular  passages  of 
Scripture  whose  import  may  be  involved  in  some  doubt  or  obscu¬ 
rity.  We  believe  it  is  mainly  because  of  the  firmness  and  steadi¬ 
ness  with  which  many  men,  who  had  no  great  critical  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  have  held  by  those  great  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciples  which  they  had  been  taught  by  the  Spirit,  and  because  of 
the  resistance  they  were  thus  led  and  enabled  to  give  to  all 
attempts  to  seduce  them  into  error,  that  many  who  were  proud  of 
their  critical  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  but  who,  there  may  be 
reason  to  fear,  have  not  been  taught  of  God,  have  set  themselves 
in  opposition  to  the  analogy  of  faith  as  a  principle  or  rule  of 
interpretation,  and  under  the  pretence  of  adhering  rigidly  to  the 
rule  of  just  investigating  accurately  the  meaning  of  each  passage 
by  itself,  and  thus  drawing  their  views,  as  they  allege,  directly 
from  the  pure  fountain  of  the  word,  unpolluted  by  human  tradi¬ 
tions  and  human  systems,  and  uninfluenced  by  the  authority  of 
men,  have  in  effect  undermined,  so  far  as  their  influence  extended, 
the  fundamental  principles  of  divine  truth,  the  principles  which 
God  has  most  clearly  revealed,  the  doctrines  which  are  most 
surely  believed  among  all  who  have  enjoyed  the  enlightening 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Those  who  have  opposed  and 
scouted  the  analogy  of  faith  as  a  principle  of  interpretation  in  the 
study  of  God’s  word,  have  usually  been  men  who  held  unsound 
views  of  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  who  had  a  great  dislike 
to  systematic  theology,  who  professed  to  disregard  and  despise  all 
attempts  at  classifying  and  systematising  the  information  which 
God  has  communicated  in  his  word,  and  to  be  concerned  only 
about  finding  out  the  true  meaning  of  each  passage  as  it  might 
come  before  them  for  investigation,  wflthout  caring  about  its 
consistency  with  other  passages,  or  with  any  general  system  of 
doctrines  ;  while,  in  most  cases,  they  too  had  a  system  of  their  own, 
though  circumstances  might  prevent  them  from  bringing  it  much 
into  prominence. 

Most  of  these  observations  apply  in  some  measure  to  Hr  Camp¬ 
bell,  of  Aberdeen,  who  has  discussed  this  subject  in  the  fourth  of  his 
Preliminary  Dissertations  to  his  translation  of  the  Gospels.  His 
Preliminary  Dissertations  form  a  very  valuable  work,  and  are  well 
worthy  of  a  perusal,  but  they  are  characterised  by  a  good  deal  of 


A^rAZO(?F  OF  FAITH. 


599 


the  spirit  and  tendency  which  has  just  been  described,  and  against 
which  I  think  it  right  to  warn  you.  His  fourth  dissertation  is 
entitled,  Observations  on  the  right  method  of  proceeding  in  the 
critical  examination  of  the  books  of  the  Hew  Testament,”  and  it 
contains  much  useful  instruction  for  guiding  and  assisting  those 
who  wish  to  know  critically  and  correctly  the  inspired  records  of 
Christianity,  along  with  some  things  on  the  subject  of  the  analogy 
of  faith  which  are  unsound  and  injurious.  After  giving  many 
really  sound  and  judicious  rules  for  regulating  the  critical  study  of 
the  New  Testament,  he  proposes  to  assign  the  reasons  why  he 
discards  altogether  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  the  etymology  of  the 
words.  His  remarks  on  the  usefulness  of  etymology  as  a  means 
of  interpretation  are  substantially  correct,  though  perhaps  carried 
too  far,  for  there  are  cases  in  which  we  have  little  else  than  ety¬ 
mology  to  guide  us  in  determining  the  meaning  of  words.  And 
even  in  regard  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  he  has  some  useful  obser¬ 
vations  which  ought  to  be  attended  to,  as  guarding  against  the 
abuse  or  improper  extension  of  a  regard  to  this  standard  as  a  rule 
of  interpretation.  But  his  views  go  virtually  to  exclude  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  the  principle  altogether,  and  he  bases  them  upon  arguments 
and  considerations  which  are  destitute  of  any  real  weight.  His  • 
main  idea  is,  that  the  analogy  of  faith,  if  relevant  and  applicable 
at  all,  should  include  only  those  scriptural  truths  which  are 
universally  received  as  incontrovertible.  In  regard  to  these,  he 
admits  that  no  one  ought  to  interpret  any  doubtful  or  obscure 
passage  of  Scripture  so  as  to  contradict  them.  But  this  limitation 
proceeds  upon  a  sort  of  tacit  assumption  that  no  certainty  exists  or 
can  be  reached  in  regard  to  any  of  those  doctrines  of  Scripture 
which  have  been  controverted ;  that,  in  short,  there  are  no  clear 
and  certain  means,  apart  from  the  interpretation  of  obscure  and 
doubtful  passages,  of  deciding  among  those  different  systems  of 
doctrine,  which  have  been  propounded  by  different  sections  of 
professing  Christians  ;  and  it  is  here  mainly  that  the  mischief  and 
the  danger  lie.  It  is  quite  true  that  doctrines  must  be  clearly  and 
certainly  established  upon  scriptural  grounds,  before  they  can  be 
applied  in  any  measure,  or  to  any  extent,  as  tests  or  standards  of 
what  is,  or  is  not,  the  meaning  of  particular  passages.  But  surely 
men  may  attain  to  some  considerable  certainty  in  a  rational  way, 
and  upon  the  strictest  critical  principles,  as  to  the  truth  of  some 


600 


FORTY-NINTH  LECTURE. 


doctrines  which  many  professing  Christians  have  denied,  and  may 
therefore  rightfully  and  reasonably  use  these  as  in  some  measure 
tests  of  the  meaning  of  particular  passages,  whose  import  is  doubt¬ 
ful  or  obscure.^  But  while  the  principle  of  the  analogy  of  faith 
may  be  rightly  employed  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  beyond 
the  limits  which  Dr  Campbell  would  assign  to  it,  it  is  right  that 
you  should  distinctly  understand  that  its  function  or  influence 
after  all  is  very  limited,  for  much  abuse  may  arise  from  going  to 
the  opposite  extreme.  It  is  still  true  that  the  great  direct  proper 
primary  means  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a  scriptural  state¬ 
ment  is  to  investigate  the  precise  import  and  the  exact  connection 
of  the  words  which  compose  it,  viewing  them  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  and  succeeding  context,  and  comparing  it  with  other 
passages  which  are  parallel  to  it,  either  in  the  words  or  in  the 
thought.  This  is  the  proper  primary  mode  of  investigating  the 
meaning  of  any  scriptural  statement,  and  ought  never  in  any 
instance  to  be  neglected  or  carelessly  performed.  It  ought  to  take 
precedence  of  every  other  mode  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a 
passage  of  scripture ;  and  when  it  brings  out  a  clear  and  unequivo¬ 
cal  result,  it  virtually  supersedes  the  application  of  any  other  test 
or  standard.  The  meaning  of  the  passage  has  been  ascertained  in 
the  regular  competent  way,  and  the  doctrine  taught  in  it  should 
be  received  as  coming  from  God,  and  as  infallibly  true. 

It  is  only  when,  after  all  due  pains  and  diligence  have  been 
taken  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  passage  by  a  critical 
investigation  of  the  words,  its  meaning  is  still  involved  in  obscurity, 
or  when  there  are  several  meanings  which,  so  far  as  we  can  see, 
the  words  might  bear  with  almost  equal  probability,  that  we 
should  have  recourse  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  or  to  those  scriptural 
truths  which  have  already  been  fully  established  by  the  diligent 
application  of  critical  materials  and  processes ;  and  even  then  its 
function  or  office  is  not  so  much  direct  and  positive,  as  indirect  and 
negative — not  so  much  to  settle  which  one  of  the  meanings  the 
words  would  bear  is  that  which  ought  to  be  attached  to  them,  but 
to  indicate  the  meaning  or  meanings  which,  because  inconsistent 
with  some  well-established  Scripture  truth,  ought  not  to  be  assigned 
to  them.  Men  are  very  apt  from  ignorance  of  the  true  principles 

’  Carson’s  Examination  of  the  Principles  of  Biblical  Interpretation  of  Ernestiy 
Ammon,  Stuart,  and  other  Philologists  (1836),  pp.  106,  107. 


CARE  AND  IMPARTIALITY. 


601 


of  critical  interpretation  and  want  of  the  necessary  critical  know¬ 
ledge  and  materials,  or  from  sloth  and  carelessness,  and  the  want 
of  any  adequate  sense  of  the  responsibility  connected  with  investi¬ 
gating  and  ascertaining  the  true  and  exact  meaning  of  each  portion 
of  God’s  word,  to  take  up  as  the  meaning  of  any  passage  to  which 
their  attention  may  be  directed  what  may  have  occurred  to  them 
upon  a  very  superficial  view  of  it;  and  they  may  be  quite  satisfied 
with  it,  merely  because  it  is  in  accordance  with  other  passages,  and 
with  important  truths  which  the  word  of  God  sanctions.  The 
meaning  ascribed  to  the  passage  may  bring  out  what  is  really  a 
scriptural  truth,  but  it  may  not  be  the  truth  which  is  taught  in 
that  passage ;  and  thus  men,  even  when  not  teaching  anything 
positively  erroneous  in  itself  may,  through  laziness  and  carelessness, 
be  really  perverting  the  word  of  God,  and  approximating  to,  if  not 
actually  committing,  the  sin  of  handling  it  deceitfully.  It  is  of 
unspeakable  importance  that  men  have  correct  views  of  the  leading 
principles  of  God’s  oracles,  of  those  fundamental  doctrines  which 
constitute  the  substance  of  the  Christian  system,  and  on  the  belief 
and  application  of  which  their  personal  salvation  depends ;  and  it 
is  right  that  they  should  apply  these  fundamental  doctrines  in  the 
way  of  excluding  or  setting  aside  any  proposed  interpretation  of 
an  obscure  or  doubtful  passage  that  may  be  inconsistent  with 
them.  But  at  the  same  time  we  should  never  forget  that  we  are 
bound  by  the  most  solemn  obligations  to  ascertain  as  far  as  possible 
the  precise  and  exact  meaning  of  every  portion  of  God’s  word,  that 
the  direct  and  proper  means  of  effecting  this  is  a  careful  and 
impartial  investigation  of  the  words  as  they  stand,  according  to 
the  laws  and  rules  of  criticism,  accompanied  with  fervent  prayer 
for  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  no  impatience,  no  sloth, 
no  prejudice  or  prepossession  should  stand  in  the  way  of  the  faithful 
and  persevering  use  of  these  means.  And  you  may  be  assured 
that  so  long  as  you  continue  upon  earth  you  will  still  have  abun¬ 
dant  scope  in  the  careful  study  of  God’s  word  for  all  your  talents 
and  learning,  for  all  your  experience  and  activity,  for  all  your  gifts, 
natural  and  spiritual ;  and  that  when  you  abound  and  persevere 
in  these  exercises,  you  are  fully  warranted  to  cherish  the  expecta¬ 
tion  that  you  will  grow  in  knowledge  as  well  as  in  holiness,  even 
until  you  enter  upon  that  state  where  you  shall  see  no  longer 
through  a  glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face,  and  where  you  shall  know 
even  as  you  are  known. 


LECTURE  L. 


CONFESSION,  CHAP.  I.  SEC.  10— JUDGE  OF  CONTEOVEESY. 

The  tenth  and  last  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  is  expressed  in  the  following  words  : — ‘‘  The  supreme 
judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  he  determined, 
and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of 
men,  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sen¬ 
tence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
in  the  Scripture.”  This  great  truth  may  be  regarded  as  at  once 
the  comprehensive  summary  and  the  practical  result  of  all  that 
has  been  already  considered  and  established  with  regard  to  the 
origin,  object,  and  authority  of  the  inspired  volume.  And  while 
the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed  bears  an  obvious  reference 
to  certain  controversies  which  have  been  agitated  concerning  this 
point,  and  cannot  be  fully  understood  without  some  knowledge  of 
these  controversies,  while  the  proposition  is  and  was  intended  to 
be  a  virtual  denial  of  certain  errors,  yet  it  contains  a  positive  and 
important  practical  truth  which  ought  to  be  deeply  impressed 
upon  our  understandings  and  our  hearts,  and  ought  ever  to  regu¬ 
late  our  conduct.  We  have  seen  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule 
or  standard  of  faith,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Apocrypha  and 
unwritten  tradition,  so  that  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God  which 
we  are  bound  to  understand,  receive,  and  submit  to,  is  actually 
contained  in  the  words  of  Scripture,  and  is  to  be  found  nowhere 
else.  The  Church  of  Home  not  only  adds  the  Apocrypha  and 
unwritten  tradition  to  the  written  word  as  a  part  of  the  standard 
of  truth  or  of  the  divine  law,  but  alleges  that  there  is  in  the  church 
a  living,  permanent,  infallible  interpreter  of  the  word  of  God, 
though  the  church  herself  has  not  decided,  and  her  subjects  are 
not  agreed,  as  to  where  this  power  of  infallibly  interpreting 


JUDGE  OF  COXTROVERSY. 


603 


Scripture  is  lodged.  They  further  maintain  that  this  infallible 
interpreter  of  the  word  of  God  is  the  supreme  judge  by  whom  all 
disputes  about  religious  subjects  must  be  determined,  to  whom  the 
ultimate  appeal  in  all  such  matters  is  to  be  made,  and  to  whose 
decisions  men  are  bound  to  submit,  receiving  them  as  coming 
from  God.  Of  course  it  is  manifest  that  if  there  be  any  man  or 
body  of  men  who  have  been  vested  with  the  privilege  of  infallibly 
interpreting  the  word  of  God,  he  or  they  must  be  the  supreme 
judge  of  all  disputes  that  may  arise  about  religious  matters,  and 
that  men  must  receive  their  decisions  as  divine  oracles.  Protest¬ 
ants,  however,  maintain  and  prove  that  God  has  appointed  no 
infallible  interpreter  to  whose  decisions,  in  declaring  the  meaning 
of  Scripture  as  to  any  differences  of  opinion  that  may  arise,  men 
are  bound  to  render  submission ;  that  the  reasoning  of  Romanists 
about  the  necessity  of  an  infallible  interpreter  and  a  living  un¬ 
erring  supreme  judge  are  unwarranted  and  presumptuous,  and 
that  even  if  they  had  more  weight  or  plausibility  in  them  than 
they  possess,  this  would  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  proof  which 
has  been  adduced  that  in  point  of  fact  no  such  interpreter  or 
judge  has  been  appointed  or  exists,  or  of  the  still  stronger  and 
indeed  absolutely  overwhelming  proof  which  has  been  brought 
forward  that  no  such  privilege  of  infallible  interpretation  or  of 
unerring  judgment  has  been  vested  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The 
Romanists  claim  for  the  church  the  privilege  of  infallibly  inter¬ 
preting  Scripture  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  on 
this  as  the  only  adequate  basis  they  may  establish  her  right  to  the 
office  of  supreme  judge  of  controversies,  from  whose  decisions  there 
is  no  appeal ;  and  Protestants,  by  establishing  upon  the  grounds 
adverted  to  in  former  lectures  that  God  has  not  appointed,  and 
that  in  point  of  fact  there  does  not  exist  upon  earth,  a  living 
infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture,  do  thereby  at  the  same  time 
substantially  prove  that  there  is  no  supreme  judge  upon  earth  by 
whose  decisions  men  are  bound  to  regulate  their  opinions  and 
their  conduct  in  religious  matters.  The  doctrine  then  brought 
before  us  in  this  section  of  the  Confession  does  not,  you  see, 
materially  differ  in  substance  from  what  has  already  been  ex¬ 
plained  and  proved  under  the  head  of  the  rule  of  faith,  though  it 
presents  the  same  principle  under  a  somewhat  different  aspect. 
Since  a  claim  has  been  set  up  in  behalf  of  the  Pope  or  a  general 


604 


FIFTIETH  LECTURE. 


council  to  be  the  supreme  judge  in  ail  differences  or  disputes 
about  religious  matters,  Protestants  in  opposing  this  claim  have 
in  some  measure  accommodated  themselves  to  the  phraseology 
employed  by  their  opponents  ;  and  while  denying  that  there  is 
any  supreme  judge  upon  earth  who  is  entitled  to  decide  all  con¬ 
troversies  of  religion,  and  whose  decisions  men  are  bound  to  obey, 
claim  this  prerogative  for  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures. 

The  Romanists  admit  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  supreme 
judge  ;  but  they  contend  not  only  that  he  speaks  by  unwritten 
tradition  as  well  as  by  the  written  word,  but  also  that  he  speaks 
by  popes  and  general  councils  in  deciding  upon  any  differences  or 
disputes  that  may  have  arisen  about  religious  matters.  Protest¬ 
ants  contend  not  only  that  the  written  word  given  by  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  contains  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  so  that 
we  need  go  nowhere  else  to  find  it,  but  also  that  he  who  is  admitted 
on  both  sides  to  be  the  only  supreme  judge  gives  his  decisions 
in  no  other  tribunal  and  through  no  other  channel  than  the  written 
word  which  he  has  inspired.  When  the  question  is  put.  What  is 
the  rule  of  faith  ?  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  settling  this  practical 
point,  where  should  men  go  to,  what  source  should  they  apply  to, 
when  they  desire  to  know  what  is  the  mind  and  will  of  God ;  and. 
when  the  question  is  put.  Who  is  the  supreme  judge  of  contro¬ 
versies  of  religion  ?  it  is  in  order  to  settle  this  practical  point,  to 
whom  should  an  appeal  be  made,  and  by  whose  decisions  should 
men  be  guided  when  a  difference  arises  about  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  or  about  any  point  of  faith  or  practice.  Protestants 
answer  the  former  question  by  referring  men  to  the  written  word 
as  containing  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  Romanists  by  refer¬ 
ring  them  to  the  unwritten  as  well  as  to  the  written  word.  Pro¬ 
testants  answer  the  second  question  in  the  same  way  as  the  first, 
or,  merely  accommodating  the  phraseology  of  their  answer  to  that 
used  in  the  question,  they  say  that  the  only  supreme  judge  is 
the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures ;  while  Papists  say  in 
answer  to  the  second  question  that  there  is  upon  earth  a  living 
supreme  judge  to  be  found  somewhere  within  the  pale  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  though  they  scarcely  pretend  to  be  very  certain 
who  or  what  he  is,  or  to  be  very  able  to  tell  us  how  his  decisions 
are  to  be  procured  or  ascertained.  The  substance  then  of  the  truth 


HUMAN  AUTHORITY. 


605 


upon  this  point  is,  that  if  m^n  in  their  study  of  the  word  of  God 
meet  with  statements  the  meaning  of  which  they  find  it  difficult 
to  understand,  or  from  which  after  most  diligent  and  prayerful 
study  they  deduce  a  meaning  which  brings  them  into  collision 
with  others,  or  involves  them  in  controversial  discussions,  there  is 
no  human  source  to  which  they  can  have  recourse  for  an  authori¬ 
tative  and  certain  settlement  of  these  doubts  and  difficulties,  or  for 
a  decision  which  they  are  bound  to  submit  to,  of  their  differences 
with  other  men,  that  they  must  adhere  with  unshaken  firmness  to 
the  supreme  authority  of  the  written  word,  make  it  still  their  one 
grand  object  to  ascertain  what  is  the  true  and  real  meaning  of 
what  the  Holy  Spirit  has  written,  and  receive  nothing  as  an  autho¬ 
ritative  decision  of  the  point — a  decision  which  they  are  bound  to 
submit  to  until  they  are  satisfied  that  they  have  got  the  decision 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures.  There  may  be 
many  sources  to  which  men  may  apply  to  assist  them  in  ascertain¬ 
ing  the  meaning  of  scriptural  statements,  making  up  their  minds 
as  to  what  is  the  deliverance  of  the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture 
upon  any  controverted  point  which  they  may  be  called  upon  to 
consider.  And  there  may  be  men  or  bodies  of  men  whose  opinion 
or  judgment  upon  some  obscure  or  difficult  question  is  entitled  to 
some  weight  or  deference ;  but  the  word  of  God  itself  is  alone 
authoritative,  the  decision  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scripture  is  alone  entitled  of  itself  to  the  implicit  submission  of  our 
understandings  and  our  consciences.  A  judge  is  one  who  is  autho¬ 
rised  and  entitled  to  decide  litigated  questions,  and  whose  decisions, 
because  he  is  possessed  of  rightful  jurisdiction,  are  binding  upon 
others  and  entitled  to  their  submission  and  obedience.  And  as 
God  alone  is  lord  of  the  conscience,  his  decisions  alone  are  entitled 
to  be  received  as  authoritative  in  any  matter  of  religious  opinion 
or  practice.  He  has  made  known  to  us  his  law  only  in  his  word. 
He  has  given  us  no  certain  means  of  knowing  what  his  mind  and 
will  is  except  by  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  its  statements.  He 
has  told  us  of  no  certain  means  of  ascertaining  what  is  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  statements  of  his  word  except  by  studying  it  carefully  in 
the  use  of  ordinary  and  appropriate  means,  while  he  has  promised 
to  them  who  ask  him  that  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dictated  the 
Scriptures  shall  be  put  forth  to  guide  them  unto  all  necessary 
truth. 


606 


FIFTIETH  LECTURE. 


The  Papists,  in  advocating  the  claims  of  a  living  supreme  judge 
who  possesses  rightful  jurisdiction  in  religious  matters,  and  whose 
decisions  men  are  bound  to  obey,  usually  refer  to  those  passages 
of  Scripture  which  establish  the  distinction  between  rulers  or 
office-bearers  and  ordinary  members  in  the  Christian  church,  and 
which  vest  in  the  former  class  a  certain  kind  or  degree  of  authority, 
and  impose  upon  the  latter  some  obligation  to  obedience.  It  is 
quite  true  that  the  New  Testament  fully  warrants  the  distinction 
between  office-bearers  and  ordinary  members  of  the  church,  that 
it  constitutes  the  office-bearers  in  a  certain  sense  judges  for  deter¬ 
mining  controversies  of  religion,  and  vests  in  them  a  certain 
measure  of  rightful  jurisdiction  or  authority,  and  imposes  upon 
ordinary  members  a  certain  obligation  to  submission  or  obedience ; 
hut  there  is  nothing  in  this  general  statement  which  necessarily 
implies  that  the  decisions  of  ecclesiastical  office-bearers  have  of 
themselves,  and  irrespective  of  their  accordance  with  the  written 
word,  any  power  to  bind  men’s  consciences,  and  the  ascription  of 
any  such  power  to  them  is  in  clear  contradiction  to  fundamental 
principles  plainly  taught  in  Scripture.  This  is  not  an  occasion  for 
entering  into  anything  like  an  exposition  of  that  purely  ministerial 
authority  conferred  by  Christ  upon  the  office-bearers  of  his  church. 
All  that  is  necessary  or  practicable  at  present  is  just  to  direct 
your  attention  to  two  important  truths  which  are  sufficient  to 
mark  out  in  what  sense  they  are  judges,  and  how  entirely  different 
in  kind  is  any  authority  which  can  justly  be  ascribed  to  them 
from  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures — first,  all 
men,  whether  collectively  or  individually,  whether  office-bearers 
or  ordinary  members  of  the  church,  who  may  be  called  upon  to 
give  an  opinion  or  to  pronounce  a  judgment  upon  any  point  of 
faith  or  practice,  are  bound  in  making  up  their  opinion,  or  in 
pronouncing  their  judgment,  to  be  guided  exclusively  by  the 
written  word,  to  have  it  for  their  one  sole  object  to  ascertain  how 
the  Spirit  has  decided  the  matter  in  the  Scriptures,  to  continue  in 
the  use  of  all  appropriate  means  until  they  have  ascertained  this 
to  their  satisfaction,  and  then  to  make  the  judgment  pronounced 
by  the  Spirit  in  the  written  word  the  absolute  and  exclusive  rule 
or  standard  of  their  opinion  or  judgment.  Whatever  authority  or 
jurisdiction  any  man  or  body  of  men  may  possess  in  the  decision 
of  religious  questions,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of 


PERSONAL  RESPONSIBILITY. 


GOT 


Christ’s  visible  church,  it  is  altogether  and  absolutely  subordinate 
to  that  of  the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  word  ;  second,  no  decision  or 
judgment  of  any  man  or  body  of  men,  whether  office-bearers  or 
not,  and  however  eminent  they  may  be  for  their  talent  and  learn¬ 
ing,  is  entitled  of  itself  to  bind  men’s  consciences,  or  ought  to 
exercise  any  authority  upon  men’s  opinions  or  actions,  unless  it  be, 
and  except  in  so  far  as  it  is,  accordant  with  the  judgment  of  the 
Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture ;  and  of  this  accordance,  each  man 
must  judge  for  himself  in  the  exercise  of  his  own  faculties,  and 
upon  his  own  responsibility.  I  am  not  called  upon  at  present  to 
attempt  to  explain  what  rightful  authority  is  still  left  to  church 
courts  and  ecclesiastical  office-bearers.  But  if  these  propositions 
are  true,  as  they  certainly  are,  they  are  quite  sufficient  to  shew 
that  the  authority  or  jurisdiction  or  right  of  judging  which 
ecclesiastical  office-bearers  possess  is  not  in  the  least  inconsistent 
with  the  great  truth  that  the  supreme  judge,  the  only  judge 
possessed  of  a  real  right  to  bind  men’s  consciences,  and  authori¬ 
tatively  to  determine  their  opinions  and  conduct  in  matters  of 
religion,  can  be  no  other  than  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scriptures.  While  ecclesiastical  office-bearers  or  church  courts 
are  in  a  certain  sense,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  limitation  stated 
above,  judges  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture  and  of  religious  contro¬ 
versies,  so  every  man  is  also  in  a  certain  sense  a  judge,  and  this 
too  is  in  entire  accordance  with  the  Holy  Spirit  being  the  supreme 
judge;  nay,  it  is  just  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  supreme 
judge  that  every  man  is  ultimately  and  finally  a  judge  in  a  sense 
for  himself. 

As  there  is  no  infallible  standard  but  the  word,  as  there  is  no 
infallible  judge  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  word,  it 
follows  that  if  men  have  access  to  the  word,  and  are  at  all  capable 
of  understanding  its  meaning,  if  they  are  possessed  of  liberty  of 
conscience  and  of  personal  responsibility,  they  are  not  only 
entitled  but  bound  to  judge  ultimately  for  themselves  what  is  the 
meaning  of  Scripture  and  the  judgment  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
not  only  are  not  required,  but  are  not  at  liberty  to  receive  as 
authoritative  the  decision  of  any  man  or  body  of  men  without 
being  satisfied,  as  the  result  of  their  own  personal  investigation, 
that  these  decisions  are  in  accordance  with  the  mind  and  will  of 
God  revealed  in  his  word.  It  is  true  that  no  man  has  individually 


608 


FIFTIETH  LECTURE. 


even  that  ministerial  authority  or  jurisdiction  which  church  courts 
possess,  that  he  can  judge  only  for  himself,  and  not  as  entitled  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  in  any  sense  over  others.  No  man  has  any 
right  or  title  to  require  of  any  other  to  receive  implicitly  his 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  God’s  word,  or  to  submit  to  his 
judgment  or  decision  in  any  matter  pertaining  to  faith  or  practice. 
Some  men  may  afford  important  assistance  to  others  in  ascertain¬ 
ing  what  is  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  and  in  adopting  a  right 
mode  of  thinking  and  acting  in  regard  to  God  and  religion,  but 
anything  like  authority  properly  so  called  is  excluded.  Any  one 
man  is  just  as  much  entitled  as  any  other  to  judge  for  himself  as 
to  what  God  would  have  him  to  believe  and  to  do.  Every  man  is 
entitled  to  make  up  his  own  mind  as  to  what  is  the  decision  given 
by  the  Spirit  in  the  word  ;  nay,  he  is  bound  to  do  this  as  judge  of 
his  own  acts,  and  for  the  regulation  of  his  own  conduct,  and  the 
exercise  of  his  own  legitimate  influence,  be  it  w^hat  it  may.  As 
however  no  one  man  is  invested  with  any  authority  or  jurisdiction 
over  any  other  in  matters  of  religion,  but  is  merely  entitled  to 
decide  for  himself  with  a  view  to  the  regulation  of  his  own  conduct, 
many  authors  in  treating  of  this  subject  have  thought  it  proper  to 
make  some  explanations  and  distinctions  while  asserting  the  right 
of  each  man  to  judge.  A  judge  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  is 
one  who  is  entitled  to  decide  not  only  for  himself  but  for  others,  as 
having  some  rightful  jurisdiction  over  them,  and  being  warranted 
to  expect  some  kind  or  degree  of  obedience  or  submission  on  their 
part.  In  this  sense  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  word  is  the 
supreme  judge,  being  alone  entitled  authoritatively  and  ultimately 
to  determine  and  decide  all  controversies  of  religion.  In  this  sense 
also,  ecclesiastical  office-bearers  or  church  courts  are  judges,  being 
invested  with  a  certain  ministerial  or  subordinate  authority  in  decid¬ 
ing,  not  only  for  thesmelves  but  also  for  others,  all  the  questions 
which  it  is  necessary  to  determine  with  a  view  to  the  execution  of 
the  function  intrusted  to  them,  viz.,  the  administration,  according 
to  the  standard  of  the  word  and  the  judgment  of  the  Spirit,  of  the  ’ 
ordinary  necessary  business  of  Christ’s  visible  church.  But  in  this 
proper  sense  of  the  word  no  one  man  is  a  judge  in  any  matter 
pertaining  to  religion,  as  he  merely  decides  for  himself  as  judge  of 
his  own  acts,  and  with  a  view  to  the  regulation  of  his  own  conduct, 
and  possesses  in  no  sense  jurisdiction  or  authority  over  others.  On 


THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE. 


GOO 


this  ground  some  writers  on  this  subject  have  suggested  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  holding  that  while  every  man,  viewed  singly  and  indi¬ 
vidually,  may  be  said  in  religious  matters  judicare,  he  cannot  be 
said  judicem  agere,  he  may  be  said  to  judge  indeed  or  to  decide 
for  himself,  but  not  to  act  the  part  of  a  judge  as  if  he  had  any 
jurisdiction  or  authority  over  others  ;  and  the  distinction,  in  what¬ 
ever  way  it  may  be  expressed,  is  one  that  ought  to  be  understood 
and  remembered  as  being  fitted  to  throw  light  upon  this  subject. 

I  may  remark  in  passing  that  there  is  another  party  besides 
ecclesiastical  office-bearers,  on  whose  behalf  a  claim  to  a  right  to 
judge,  to  exercise  authority  or  jurisdiction  in  religious  matters, 
has  been  often  put  forth,  and  whose  claim  rests  upon  a  worse 
foundation  if  possible  than  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome — I  mean 
of  course  the  civil  magistrate,  or  the  supreme  civil  authority  of 
a  nation,  in  whomsoever  it  may  be  vested.  The  civil  magistrate 
has  just  precisely  the  same  right  to  judge,  the  same  jurisdiction 
or  authority  in  religious  matters  as  any  single  private  individual 
has,  i.e.  he  is  entitled  to  decide  on  religious  questions  for  himself 
as  judge  of  his  own  acts,  and  with  a  view  to  the  regulation  of  his 
own  conduct  and  the  exercise  of  his  own  legitimate  influence ; 
and  in  deciding  in  this  sense,  and  to  this  extent,  upon  religious 
matters,  the  civil  magistrate  is  bound  just  like  any  private  indi¬ 
vidual  to  be  guided  solely  by  the  standard  of  the  written  word, 
and  is  responsible  to  God  for  the  decision  to  which  he  may  come. 
But  he  has  no  authority  whatever  in  this  matter,  not  even  that 
ministerial  or  subordinate  authority  which  church  courts  possess, 
and  no  human  being  is  called  upon  or  is  even  at  liberty  to  render 
any  submission  or  obedience  whatever  to  any  decisions  he  may 
pronounce  on  anything  connected  with  religion  or  the  church  of 
Christ.  Any  private  man  indeed  who  may  profess  to  open  up  to 
us  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture,  and  to  point  out  to  us  the 
course  which  God’s  word  sanctions  or  requires,  is  entitled  to  a 
hearing,  while  we  reserve  our  own  absolute  and  indefeasible  right 
to  judge  of  the  truth  of  his  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  civil 
magistrate  is  entitled  to  nothing  more  than  a  hearing ;  and  if  he 
does  not  come  with  the  word  of  God  in  his  hand,  and  profess  at 
least  to  open  up  to  us  its  meaning  and  import,  he  is  not  entitled 
to  even  that.  The  claim  on  behalf  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  a 


610 


FIFTIETH  LECTURE. 


right  of  judging  or  deciding  for  others  in  religious  or  ecclesiastical 
matters,  with  a  corresponding  obligation  on  their  part  to  obey,  is 
more  preposterous  than  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  he  at 
least  professes  to  be  an  ecclesiastical  office-bearer,  deriving  his 
authority  from  Christ,  and  directed  by  his  Spirit ;  and  accordingly, 
while  many  churches  have  ignominiously  submitted  to  this 
usurped  and  unlawful  authority  of  Caesar,  scarcely  any  church 
has  ever  had  the  boldness  openly  and  explicitly  to  defend  it. 
Whenever  men  are  called  upon  to  take  any  part,  collectively 
or  individually,  publicly  or  privately,  in  any  controversies  of 
religion,  they  must  be  guided  by  the  standard  of  the  word ; 
they  must  be  determined  by  the  judgment  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
speaking  in  the  Scriptures.  Other  standards  have  been  some¬ 
times  set  up  as  entitled  to  regulate  men’s  opinions  and  conduct 
on  religious  matters ;  and  though  some  of  these  may  be  entitled 
to  a  certain  measure  of  respect,  and  when  kept  in  their  proper 
place  and  rightly  applied,  may  afford  us  some  assistance  in 
ascertaining  and  comprehending  fully  the  mind  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  word,  none  of  them  is  possessed  of  any  authority ;  none 
of  them  is  capable  of  binding  our  consciences,  or  should  of 
itself  regulate  or  determine  our  judgment  or  practice.  Some  of 
the  principal  of  them  are  mentioned  in  this  section  of  the  Con¬ 
fession,  viz.,  the  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers, 
doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits.  The  decrees  of  councils 
are  just  in  substance  the  opinions  of  ancient  writers  and  the 
doctrines  of  men,  though  given  in  a  somewhat  more  formal  and 
solemn  way.  They  are  therefore  possessed  of  no  proper  autho¬ 
rity,  and  must  be  all  examined  by  the  written  word,  and  the 
judgment  of  the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures.  If  they  agree 
with  this  standard — and  on  this  point  men  must  judge  for  them¬ 
selves  on  their  own  responsibility — they  should  be  received  ;  and  if 
not,  we  are  not  only  entitled,  but  bound  to  reject  them.  It  has  been 
proved  that  there  are  councils  against  councils,  as  well  as  popes 
against  popes,  so  that  no  rational  man  can  receive  all  their  decrees. 
Protestants  have  generally  agreed  in  receiving  the  decrees  of  the 
first  four  general  councils,  held  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
in  matters  of  doctrine,  though  not  in  matters  of  worship  and 
discipline.  But  then  they  have  received  them,  not  because  they 
ascribed  any  authority  to  the  decrees  of  councils  as  such,  or  of 


PRIVATE  SPIRITS. 


611 


these  councils  in  particular,  but  because  by  an  examination  of  the 
word  of  God  they  were  convinced  that  the  doctrinal  decrees  of 
these  councils,  which  respected  chiefly  the  Trinity  and  the  person 
of  Christ,  were  in  point  of  fact  accordant  with  the  judgn:ient  of 
the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture.  There  has  been  no  council 
since  the  age  of  the  apostles,  the  decrees  of  which  are  entitled  to 
be  received  as  true  and  binding,  without  being  examined  by  the 
standard  of  Scripture,  or  upon  any  other  ground  than  their  ascer¬ 
tained  accordance  with  that  standard. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  itself,  though  entitled  to  as  much 
respect  as  can  be  lawfully  accorded  to  any  body  of  uninspired  men 
that  ever  convened,  has  no  authority  over  men’s  consciences.  Men 
are  entitled  and  bound  to  bring  all  its  decrees,  including  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith  on  which  we  are  commenting,  to  be  examined  by 
the  standard  of  God’s  word,  and  by  the  judgment  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures.  You  cannot  of  course  lawfully 
or  honestly  receive  it  as  the  confession  of  your  faith,  unless  and 
until  you  are  satisfied  of  the  entire  accordance  of  its  statements 
with  the  word  of  God ;  and  this  you  are  called  upon  to  investigate 
for  yourselves,  each  one  upon  his  own  responsibility.  While  the 
church  receives  no  one  to  the  office  of  the  ministry  unless  he 
declare  his  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  she  of  course 
wishes  none  to  apply  for  admission  to  minister  within  her  pale 
unless  he  can  make  such  a  declaration  at  once  intelligently  and 
honestly  ;  and  this  is  what  no  one  can  do  unless  he  has  fairly  and 
impartially  brought  all  its  statements  to  be  examined  by  the 
standard  of  the  written  word,  and  is  really  persuaded,  as  the  result 
of  his  own  personal  investigation,  that  its  doctrines  are  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  decisions  of  the  only  Supreme  Judge.  The  private 
spirits  here  spoken  of  are  impressions  which  enthusiasts  and 
fanatics  have  sometimes  had  of  views  of  doctrine  and  duty  which 
they  imagined  or  professed  to  have  been  communicated  to  them 
by  the  Spirit,  apart  from  the  statements  of  the  written  word,  by 
the  Spirit  speaking  to  them  individually  through  some  other 
channel  than  the  Scriptures.  Everything  of  this  sort  too  is  to  be 
examined  by  the  word;  and,  if  not  sanctioned  by  it,  is  to  be  rejected. 
We  have  good  ground  in  Scripture  for  believing  that  the  special 
agency  of  the  Spirit  is  necessary  for  guiding  men  to  the  true 
meaning  of  Scripture,  to  any  real  effective  useful  knowledge  of  its 


612 


FIFTIETH  LECTURE. 


statements ;  but  we  have  no  ground  to  believe  that  the  Spirit  com¬ 
municates  to  men  any  views  of  doctrine  or  duty,  but  what  are 
contained  in  or  may  be  deduced  from  the  statements  of  Scripture 
critically  understood.  Men  are  called  upon  to  form  their  whole 
opinions,  and  to  regulate  their  whole  conduct  in  regard  to  religious 
matters,  from  what  is  actually  found  in  the  sacred  Scriptures ;  and 
when  they  profess  any  doctrines  as  having  been  taught  them  by 
the  Spirit,  and  inculcate  them  upon  others,  they  are  bound  to 
establish  them  by  a  fair  examination  of  the  true  import  of  scrip¬ 
tural  statements.  This  is  the  only  standard  ;  it  liveth  and  abideth 
for  ever.  The  Spirit  speaking  by  it  is  the  only  supreme  judge ; 
and  when  we  really  desire  to  have  God’s  word  made  a  light  unto 
our  feet  and  a  lamp  unto  our  path,  it  becomes  us  to  be  deeply 
impressed  with  the  conviction  that  it  is  the  Spirit  who  is  there 
speaking  to  us,  that  it  is  with  him  we  have  to  do,  in  order  that 
while  we  diligently  and  faithfully  use  all  the  natural  and  appro¬ 
priate  means  of  attaining  to  a  correct  knowledge  of  its  meaning, 
we  may  cherish  a  sense  of  our  entire  dependence  upon  his  special 
agency,  have  it  for  our  one  great  object  that  we  obtain  his  judg¬ 
ment  upon  every  point  that  may  occupy  our  attention,  and  then 
render  to  it  the  absolute  and  universal  submission  of  our  under¬ 
standings,  our  hearts,  and  our  lives. 


LECTURE  LT. 


CONCLUSION. 

T^HEN  I  commenced  my  labours  in  this  place,  I  addressed 
*  ^  myself  exclusively  to  the  junior  students  who  were  com¬ 
mencing  their  theological  studies,  and  who  were  to  be  placed  under 
my  own  immediate  superintendence;  and  I  mean  to  follow  the 
same  course  in  now  concluding  the  labours  of  the  session.  While 
reminding  you  of  what  we  have  done  during  the  session,  I  am 
chiefly  anxious  to  impress  upon  you  the  conviction  that  you  have 
yet  made  very  little  progress  in  your  theological  studies,  and  that 
a  very  wide  field  of  investigation  still  lies  before  you,  and  to 
suggest  some  directions  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  your  attain¬ 
ments,  which  may  contribute  to  aid  you  in  your  progress.  We 
proposed  as  the  general  object  that  should  occupy  your  attention 
during  this  session  the  formation  of  such  views,  with  a  knowledge 
of  the  grounds  on  which  they  rested,  of  the  origin,  objects,  and 
authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  of  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  they  ought  to  be  interpreted  and  applied,  as  might  impress 
upon  you  the  necessity  and  importance  of  making  it  your  great 
aim  during  the  rest  of  your  lives,  to  understand  fully  and  correctly 
their  meaning  and  import,  and  might  set  you  on  the  right  way  of 
effecting  this  object.  This  leading  design  has  been  followed  out 
in  the  whole  business  of  the  session,  though  I  am  sensible  very 
imperfectly.  The  general  subject  thus  proposed  for  consideration, 
though  apparently  simple,  comprehends  a  considerable  number  of 
important  topics  of  discussion,  and  to  the  most  of  them  your 
attention  has  been  more  or  less  fully  directed.  Christian  theology 
is  based  upon  the  great  truth  that  God  has  supernaturally  revealed 
his  will  to  men,  to  guide  them  to  the  knowledge  of  himself,  and 
to  the  eternal  enjoyment  of  liis  presence.  When  taken  in  its  more 


614 


FIFTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


restricted  sense,  it  naay  be  said  to  assume  this  as  true,  and  to  be 
itself,  viewed  as  a  science,  directed  to  the  object  of  opening  up  the 
information  which  God  in  this  supernatural  revelation  of  his  will 
has  communicated  to  us.  Still  the  questions,  whether  God  has 
made  to  men  a  supernatural  revelation  of  his  will,  and  if  so,  where 
it  is  to  be  found,  and  how  its  meaning  and  import  may  be  ascer¬ 
tained,  are  of  fundamental  importance,  and  though  but  preliminary 
or  introductory  to  the  study  of  Christian  theology  strictly  so  called, 
require  to  be  carefully  studied  and  investigated,  in  order  that  your 
minds  may  be  thoroughly  made  up  concerning  them,  and  in  order 
that  you  may  clearly  understand  yourselves,  and  may  be  able  dis¬ 
tinctly  to  explain  to  others,  the  grounds  on  which  your  convictions 
on  these  points  rest.  It  is  with  these  preliminary  or  introductory 
topics,  called  by  some  writers  the  prolegomena  or  proecognoscenda  of 
Christian  theology,  that  you  have  been  chiefly  occupied  during 
this  session.  The  evidences  for  the  truth  of  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion,  for  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  whole  Bible,  for  its 
plenary  inspirition,  for  the  accuracy  of  the  received  Protestant 
canon,  and  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  sacred  text,  for  the 
exclusive  authority  of  the  Bible  as  the  only  standard  of  faith  and 
practice,  for  its  undivided  supremacy  as  the  sole  arbiter  of  opinions 
and  conduct,  have  been  all  more  or  less  fully  brought  under  your 
consideration.  It  is  the  establishment  of  the  truth  upon  these 
points  that  brings  home  to  men’s  understandings  and  consciences 
the  obligation  to  study  the  sacred  Scriptures,  to  employ  with  the 
utmost  zeal  and  diligence  all  means  by  which  they  may  attain  to 
a  correct  knowledge  of  their  meaning,  and  to  submit  implicitly  to 
their  teaching  whenever  their  import  is  ascertained.  Accordingly 
we  have  endeavoured  not  only  to  enforce  upon  you  this  obligation, 
but  to  point  out  to  you  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  a  correct  and 
exact  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and 
have  explained  the  leading  principles  and  rules  by  which  you 
ought  to  be  guided  in  conducting  the  study  of  them. 

I  regret  that  so  little  time  was  left  for  directing  your  attention 
at  any  considerable  length,  either  to  the  theory  or  the  practice  of 
Scripture  interpretation — i.e.  either  to  hermeneutics  or  exegesis. 
Still  I  would  fain  hope  that  enough  has  been  brought  before  you 
of  the  real  nature  and  objects  of  the  accurate  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  of  the  leading  principles,  as  suggested  both  by 


REVIEW  OF  THE  COURSE. 


615 


Scripture  itself  and  the  nature  of  the  case,  according  to  which  the 
study  of  it  ought  to  be  regulated,  as  may  contribute,  through  the 
divine  blessing,  to  put  you  upon  the  right  course  in  the  prosecution 
of  this  most  important  object,  or  at  least  to  guard  you  against 
errors  into  which  you  might  be  apt  to  fall,  and  to  encourage  you 
to  prosecute  the  object  with  a  zeal  and  diligence  proportioned  in 
some  measure  to  its  importance.  But  though  all  these  sub¬ 
jects  have  been  brought  before  you,  I  must  warn  you  against 
imagining  that  they  have  been  fully  explained  or  discussed  in 
the  exercises  of  the  class.  Although  you  had  succeeded,  as 
you  ought  to  have  done,  by  meditation  and  reflection,  in  fixing 
in  your  minds,  and  converting,  as  it  were,  into  a  portion  of  your 
own  intellectual  furniture,  all  that  was  brought  before  you  in  the 
class,  you  would  still  be  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with  these 
subjects,  unless  you  had  read  and  digested  much  more  than  has 
been  here  presented  to  you.  I  have  all  along  acted  upon  the 
principle  of  abstaining  from  laying  before  you  anything  like  a  full 
discussion  of  the  various  subjects  which  have  occupied  our  atten¬ 
tion,  believing  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  your  time,  and  indeed 
of  my  own,  to  be  preparing  and  submitting  to  you  in  other  words 
what  you  might  easily  find  discussed  as  well  as  it  could  be  dis¬ 
cussed  in  works  which  were  quite  accessible  to  you.  I  have 
therefore  made  it  my  chief  object  in  general,  although  on  one  or 
two  points  I  have  been  led  to  enlarge,  and  to  make  the  lectures 
somewhat  like  a  discussion  of  the  subject,  to  lay  before  you  a 
mere  sketch  or  outline  of  the  particular  topic  in  hand  ;  to  explain 
briefly  its  general  nature  and  its  relation  to  other  topics ;  to  illus¬ 
trate  its  importance ;  to  point  out  its  difficulties,  and  the  things 
chiefly  necessary  to  be  attended  to  in  the  study  of  it ;  and  to  direct 
you  to  works  where  the  clearest  and  soundest  views  and  the  fullest 
information  might  be  obtained  regarding  it.  In  consequence  of 
adopting  this  plan,  the  lectures  have  been  occupied  chiefly  with 
an  exhibition  of  the  dry  bones  of  the  different  subjects,  and  I  have 
trusted  very  much  to  yourselves  for  clothing  them  with  flesh  and 
blood  by  your  own  study  and  meditation. 

I  refer  on  this  occasion  to  the  plan  which  has  been  generally 
adopted  during  the  session,  solely  for  this  reason,  that  I  may 
impress  upon  you  the  lesson,  that  unless  you  have  been  reading, 
and  reading  with  judgment  and  reflection,  some  of  the  books 


616 


FIFTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


which  have  been  recommended  to  you,  you  have  as  yet  a  very 
imperfect  knowledge  of  the  subjects  to  which  your  attention  has 
been  directed ;  and  in  making  this  observation,  I  wish  you  to 
understand  that  unless  you  have  been  reading  and  studying  works 
upon  the  different  subjects,  you  not  only  do  not  possess  that 
enlarged  acquaintance  with  them  which  may  be  expected  in  those 
who  desire  to  excel  in  professional  knowledge,  but  not  even  that 
respectable  creditable  measure  of  acquaintance  with  them  which 
may  be  expected,  and  indeed  should  be  demanded,  of  all  who  are 
admitted  to  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry.  The  ordinary  plans 
and  exercises  of  a  theological  seminary  like  this  must  of  necessity 
be  principally  directed  to  the  object  of  securing  as  far  as  possible 
that  all  who  attend  it  shall  acquire  such  a  creditable  acquaintance 
with  the  subjects  treated  of  as  may  fit  them,  when  combined  with 
personal  piety  and  devotedness  to  God’s  service,  for  discharging 
respectably  the  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry.  This  measure 
of  knowledge  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  every  one  of  you  to 
acquire  during  your  attendance  in  this  place ;  and  the  principal 
duty  of  your  instructors  is  to  see  that  you  acquire  it,  and  to  assist 
you  in  the  acquisition  of  it.  It  is  indeed  an  important  collateral 
advantage  that  such  a  love  for  professional  study  should  be  inspired 
as  might  lead  those  of  you  who  may  possess  the  requisite  capacities, 
and  enjoy  the  necessary  means  and  opportunities,  to  rise  to  dis¬ 
tinguished  usefulness  and  eminence  in  theological  learning.  But 
this  is  not  an  object  the  attainment  of  which  can  be  said  to  be 
incumbent  upon  you  as  a  body,  or  which  ought  materially  to  influ¬ 
ence  the  general  plans  and  arrangements  according  to  which  your 
theological  education  ought  to  be  conducted. 

The  duty  which  is  imperatively  incumbent  upon  every  one  of 
you,  because  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  contingent  upon  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  any  superior  natural  powers,  or  the  enjoyment  of  any 
peculiarly  favourable  opportunities,  the  object  for  which  your 
instructors  are  in  some  measure  responsible,  because  it  can  be 
effected  or  secured,  is,  that  you  all  acquire  a  creditable  acquaintance 
with  the  different  departments  of  theological  literature.  And  you 
certainly  have  not  acquired  even  this  merely  creditable  and  indis¬ 
pensable  measure  of  acquaintance  with  the  subjects  of  this  years 
course,  unless  in  addition  to  all  that  you  may  have  heard  here, 
you  have  been  reading  upon  the  different  subjects  which  have 


FUTURE  STUDIES. 


G17 


been  brought  under  your  notice,  and  accompanying  your  reading 
with  careful  meditation  and  reflection ;  nay,  I  think  it  may  be 
safely  asserted  that  unless  you  had  been  led  to  give  a  good  deal  of 
attention  to  these  subjects  before  your  public  studies  in  this  place 
commenced,  you  are  still,  even  though  you  may  have  been  read¬ 
ing  and  studying  diligently  during  the  session,  but  imperfectly 
acquainted  with  them,  and  are  called  upon  to  continue  for  some 
time  to  prosecute  the  study  of  them.  You  may  have  sometimes, 
at  the  termination  of  a  session  of  college,  in  the  course  of  your 
previous  studies,  been  at  a  loss  to  decide  whether  it  would  be  more 
advantageous  and  expedient  for  you  to  devote  your  chief  atten¬ 
tion  during  the  summer  and  autumn  to  completing  your  investiga¬ 
tion  of  your  subjects  of  study  in  the  preceding  session,  or  to  be 
preparing  for  the  labours  of  the  subsequent  one.  I  think  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  in  regard  to  most,  if  not  all  of  you,  it  will 
be  expedient  that  your  time  during  this  summer  should  be  devoted 
chiefly  to  those  topics  which  have  occupied  your  attention  during 
the  past  session,  rather  than  to  those  with  which,  if  spared,  you 
are  to  be  engaged  during  the  next.  In  the  next  session  you  will 
commence  the  systematic  study  of  Christian  theology,  and  it  would 
be  of  no  material  benefit  to  you  that  in  the  interval  you  had  begun 
an  investigation  into  some  one  or  two  of  the  leading  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  such  as  those  concerning  God,  or  original  sin,  instead  of 
examining  them  fully  and  carefully  in  their  order,  under  the 
superintendence  of  your  instructors.  And  besides  that  the  pre¬ 
liminary  or  introductory  subjects  which  have  chiefly  occupied  you 
during  this  session  require  more  study  and  attention  than  probably 
you  have  yet  been  able  to  bestow  upon  them,  while  you  could  not 
easily  make  any  such  direct  preparation  for  the  labours  of  next 
session  as  would  be  of  any  very  material  advantage  to  you,  there 
is  this  additional  recommendation  in  favour  of  the  course  I  have 
suggested,  viz.,  that  these  topics  will  not  again  naturally  come  in 
3^our  way  as  subjects  of  study,  that  they  form  no  part  of  what  ma^^ 
be  expected  to  occupy  any  considerable  share  of  your  attention 
during  your  future  studies,  I  mean  during  all  your  future  lives,  for 
so  long  ought  your  studies  to  last.  On  this  ground  it  is  desirable 
that  you  should  critically  complete  your  investigation  of  these 
subjects  at  once,  by  forming  clear  and  definite  conceptions  regard¬ 
ing  the  various  topics  they  embrace,  with  the  leading  grounds  on 


618 


FIFTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


which  your  convictions  rest,  and  laying  them  up  in  your  minds  as 
fixed  and  settled  principles,  which  you  not  only  firmly  hold,  but 
are  able,  if  called  upon,  to  explain  and  defend.  I  do  not  mean  of 
course  that  you  are  not  after  the  summer  to  read  and  reflect  any 
more  upon  these  subjects,  for  there  is  no  department  of  theological 
literature  that  ought  ever  to  be  altogether  out  of  the  view  of  an 
intelligent  and  accomplished  minister  of  the  gospel.  There  is  no 
one  topic  comprehended  within  the  wide  range  of  theological 
study  which  ministers  may  not  be  required  by  the  circumstances 
and  condition  of  the  church  to  make  a  subject  of  special  and 
prominent  attention.  Still  it  is  true  that  when  you  have  once 
carefully  investigated  the  truth  of  Christianity,  the  divine  authority 
and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  their  exclusive  supremacy  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  have  made  yourselves 
familiar  with  the  grounds  on  which  your  convictions  upon  these 
points  rest  and  can  be  vindicated,  it  is  not  so  necessary,  unless 
special  circumstances  in  the  condition  of  the  church  or  the 
community  call  for  it,  that  you  should  continue  to  be  habitually 
devoting  any  considerable  portion  of  time  or  attention  to  the  study 
of  these  topics. 

In  like  manner,  when  you  have  become  familiar  with  the  leading 
principles  and  rules  of  hermeneutics,  and  have  acquired  such 
a  measure  of  the  necessary  knowledge  as  may  be  considered  almost 
indispensable  before  you  can  commence  what  can  properly  be 
called  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  you  will  not  need  to  turn 
back  again  to  the  study  of  these  elementary  matters,  but  will 
rather,  in  accordance  with  these  principles  and  rules,  and  in  the 
application  of  this  knowledge,  prosecute  the  actual  work  of  exegesis. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  correct  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  the 
bringing  out  from  a  careful  study  of  Scripture  accurate  views  of 
the  mind  and  will  of  God  in  regard  to  all  the  various  subjects 
which  the  statements  of  Scripture  bring  before  us,  and  applying 
them  for  the  instruction  and  edification  of  your  fellow-men,  and 
the  maintenance  and  extension  of  God  s  truth,  are  to  form  the  great 
business  of  your  lives.  With  these  objects  you  are  to  be  habitually 
and  supremely  engaged,  and  all  your  studies  should  be  made  more 
or  less  directly  subservient  to  the  promotion  of  them.  But  on  this 
very  account  it  is  only  the  more  necessary  that  these  prolegomena 
or  proecognoscenda  should  now  and  at  once  be  pretty  fully  mastered. 


FUTURE  STUDIES. 


619 


that  you  may  be  able  to  give  yourselves  principally  to  what  should 
be  the  chief  object  of  your  attention,  not  only  in  your  preparatory 
studies  for  the  ministry,  but  also  during  the  remainder  of  your 
lives,  should  you  be  spared  to  engage  in  its  labours.  Upon  these 
grounds  I  would  strongly  advise  you  to  devote  your  time  during 
the  vacation  to  revising  the  studies  of  the  past  session,  and  com¬ 
pleting  your  acquaintance  with  the  subjects  which  have  already 
been  brought  under  your  notice,  by  careful  reflection  upon  some  of 
the  more  important  and  difficult  questions,  and  by  an  attentive 
perusal  of  some  of  the  principal  works  which  have  been  recom¬ 
mended  to  you,  or  of  others  on  the  same  subjects  to  which  you  may 
liave  access.  It  would  also  be  highly  beneficial  that  you  should 
read  with  care  and  attention  the  introductory  portions  of  some  of 
the  best  systematic  works  on  theology,  comprehending  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  subjects  of  your  studies  during  the  past  session,  such  as 
Turretine,  Pictet,  or  Maastricht,  or  some  of  the  smaller  systems  if 
you  have  not  access  to  these,  such  as  Marckius’  Medulla  or  Com¬ 
pendium,  or  the  Synopsis  Purioris  Theologies  of  the  professors  of 
Leyden.  These  works  and  others  of  a  similar  kind  discuss  in  their 
introductory  chapters,  under  the  heads  “De  Theologia,’"  “De 
Revelatione,”  ‘‘  De  Sacra  Scriptura,”  most  of  the  topics  to  which 
your  attention  has  been  directed.  You  will  find  them  to  be  in 
general  just  substantially  an  expansion  and  exposition  of  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  on  which  I  have  been  comment¬ 
ing.  You  must  read  a  good  deal  of  Latin  theology  before  you  can 
have  any  pretensions  to  the  character  of  accomplished  theologians. 
It  is  time  that  you  were  beginning  this  exercise,  and  this  is  a  strong 
collateral  reason  why  I  would  earnestly  recommend  you  to  read 
with  attention  in  the  course  of  this  summer  the  introductory  books 
or  chapters  of  some  one  or  more  of  the  systematic  works  which 
have  been  mentioned.  I  am  also  much  inclined  to  recommend  to 
you  as  a  useful  exercise,  well  suited  to  the  present  state  of  your 
studies,  to  read  through  the  four  volumes  of  Horne  s  Introduction. 

I  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  refer  to  this  work,  and  to  express 
my  opinion  concerning  it.  I  think  the  work  has  been  somewhat 
overrated,  and  I  have  no  very  high  estimate  of  the  ability  with 
which  it  has  been  executed  ;  but  it  is  undoubtedly  a  book  of  great 
research,  and  fitted  to  be  very  useful  to  the  generality  of  theo¬ 
logical  students.  It  contains  a  great  deal  of  useful  and  valuable 


620 


FIFTY-FIRHT  LECTURE. 


information,  and  it  points  out  fully  the  sources  where  additional 
materials  may  he  found  in  regard  to  any  subject  which  you  may 
wish  more  particularly  to  investigate.  It  is  commonly  used  rather 
as  a  book  of  reference,  which  men  consult  occasionally  when  they 
wish  for  information  on  any  particular  topic,  than  as  a  book  to  be 
read  at  once  from  beginning  to  end.  And  as  a  book  of  reference 
it  is  undoubtedly  very  useful  and  convenient.  Still  I  would 
recommend  to  you,  even  at  the  expense  of  some  effort  and  weari¬ 
ness,  to  read  it  through.  And  the  chief  reason  which  induces  me 
to  give  this  recommendation  is  this,  that  by  this  process  you  would 
have  brought  under  your  notice,  and  you  would  acquire  some 
knowledge  of,  a  great  many  topics  which  might  not  otherwise 
readily  come  in  your  way,  and  of  which  therefore  you  might  con¬ 
tinue  ignorant. 

There  are  a  great  many  points  connected  with  the  sacred  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  the  explanation  and  interpretation  of  them,  which  are 
of  no  very  great  intrinsic  importance,  but  which  it  is  at  once 
injurious  and  discreditable  for  a  minister  of  the  gospel  to  be 
ignorant  of,  and  with  which  therefore  it  is  his  duty  to  make  him¬ 
self  acquainted.  I  refer  principally  to  the  subjects  comprehended 
under  the  heads  of  Scripture  history,  antiquities,  geography, 
chronology,  &c. ;  the  general  properties  and  history  of  the  original 
languages  of  Scripture  and  the  cognate  dialects,  the  principal 
manuscripts  and  ancient  versions,  and  a  mass  of  topics  sometimes 
comprehended  under  the  general  name  of  bibliography,  including 
especially  the  history  of  the  different  books  of  Scripture  and  of 
their  authors,  the  time  and  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
composed,  &c,,  &c.  These  are  all  topics  with  which  you  ought  to 
have  some  acquaintance.  I  think  this  is  the  proper  period  in 
your  studies  for  acquiring  the  necessary  knowledge  of  these  and 
similar  subjects.  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  occupy  your 
time  with  bringing  them  before  you,  because  there  are  no  specu¬ 
lative  difficulties  connected  with  the  study  of  them,  and  because 
all  the  necessary  information  can  be  easily  obtained  in  many  works 
which  are  quite  accessible.  I  do  not  know  however  any  process 
by  which  you  would  be  more  certain  of  having  all  these  different 
topics,  of  which  you  ought  to  know  something,  brought  under  your 
notice  more  readily,  or  with  less  labour,  than  by  your  resolving  to 
read  through  Horne’s  Introduction,  and  by  carrying  this  resolution 


METHODICAL  STUDY. 


G21 


into  effect.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  you  that  you  are 
not  to  receive  with  implicit  credence  either  the  facts  or  the  opinions 
of  any  works  which  may  be  recommended  to  your  perusal  and 
study.  There  are  scarcely  any  of  the  works  that  have  been  recom¬ 
mended  to  you  which  would  not,  if  implicitly  followed,  lead  you  in 
some  respects  astray.  I  pointed  out  at  some  length,  in  an  early 
part  of  the  course,  the  danger  against  which  it  would  be  necessary 
for  you  to  guard  in  the  study  of  some  works  and  classes  of  works, 
which  yet  I  recommended  you  to  peruse,  connected  with  the  evi¬ 
dences  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Bible.  But  the  same  principle  applies  to  almost  all  works,  that 
they  are  to  be  read  with  careful  discrimination.  The  exercise  of 
your  own  independent  judgment  upon  all  that  you  read  is  necessary 
to  enable  you  to  discriminate  truth  from  falsehood,  and  to  profit 
aright  by  the  truth,  as  well  as  to  escape  from  the  injurious  influence 
of  the  error  they  contain.  You  are  to  call  no  man  master.  In 
regard  to  all  matters  of  fact,  you  are  to  w’eigh  the  evidence  that 
may  be  adduced ;  and  in  regard  to  all  matters  of  opinion,  you  are 
to  sift  the  arguments  that  may  be  presented  to  you ;  and  in 
regard  to  everything  that  admits  of  it,  whether  matter  of  fact  or 
of  opinion,  you  are  to  bring  it  to  the  test  of  the  only  unerring 
standard — the  word  of  God.  Let  me  direct  your  attention  to  a 
topic  which  I  think  I  have  pressed  upon  you  before,  viz.,  the 
necessity  of  prosecuting  your  studies  systematically,  of  following  a 
definite  plan,  instead  of  indulging  in  indiscriminate  or  desultory 
reading.  The  extent  of  theological  literature  is  so  vast,  it  consists 
of  so  many  different  branches,  all  having  their  respective  sources  of 
interest  and  attraction,  that  young  men  who  are  fond  of  study  are 
in  some  danger  when  they  first  enter  upon  the  field,  either,  on  the 
one  hand,  of  selecting  some  one  particular  department  to  which 
they  give  almost  undivided  attention,  or,  on  the  other,  of  reading 
on  without  plan  or  selection.  Desultory  reading  without  plan  or 
selection  is  in  any  branch  of  science  or  literature  unfavourable  at 
once  to  the  cultivation  and  improvement  of  the  mental  faculties 
and  the  acquisition  of  solid  and  useful  knowledge.  And  the  giving 
of  exclusive  attention,  or  anything  like  it,  to  any  one  department 
of  theological  study,  is  inconsistent  with  the  great  object  to  which 
your  studies  in  this  place  should  be  directed  in  preparation  for  the 
office  of  the  ministry.  This  object  implies  that  you  acquire  and 


622 


FIFTY-FIRST  LECTURE. 


possess  a  respectable  measure  of  acquaintance  with  all  the  leading 
departments  of  theological  study ;  that  you  know  something  of 
everything  which  it  might  injure  your  usefulness  and  respectability 
as  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  be  ignorant  of ;  and  this  can  be 
secured  only  by  your  acquiring,  during  the  brief  period  usually 
allotted  to  preparatory  study,  some  general  knowledge  of  what  the 
principal  subjects  are  which  theological  science  embraces,  and  then 
seeking  to  give  to  each  of  these  systematically  a  degree  of  time 
and  attention  proportioned  to  their  intrinsic  importance  and  value. 
You  may  possibly  be  hereafter  placed  in  circumstances  in  which 
there  may  be  no  dereliction  of  duty,  nothing  sinful  or  injurious,  in 
your  selecting  some  one  department  of  theological  literature,  and 
cultivating  it  with  peculiar  care  and  diligence,  i.e.  provided  you 
reserve  to  the  study  of  the  word  of  God  its  proper  and  indefeasible 
supremacy ;  but  at  present  it  is  your  duty  to  follow  a  plan,  and  a  plan 
in  the  case  of  all  of  you  substantially  the  same — a  plan  framed  with 
a  reference  to  the  one  object  of  securing  that  as  far  as  possible  you 
shall  all  acquire  during  the  course  of  your  studies  that  measure  of 
acquaintance  with  theological  science  in  all  its  leading  departments, 
the  want  of  which  would  be  injurious  to  your  usefulness  and 
respectability  as  ministers  of  the  gospel.  You  have  a  vast  deal 
yet  to  learn.  There  is  no  reason  and  no  excuse  for  idleness ;  and 
while  there  is  a  loud  call  in  your  present  circumstanses  for  much 
reading,  study,  and  meditation,  you  will  best  secure  the  object  you 
are  bound  to  aim  at  by  adopting  a  regular  plan  in  the  prosecution 
of  your  studies,  and  following  it  out  with  firmness  and  perseverance. 
I  would  fain  hope  that  by  attention  to  these  considerations  and 
directions,  accompanied  by  fervent  and  habitual  prayer  for  the 
teaching  and  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit,  you  will  be  enabled  to  make 
much  progress  in  your  studies,  and  will  return,  if  it  please  God  to 
spare  you,  at  the  commencement  of  another  session,  with  the  sub¬ 
jects  that  have  engaged  your  attention  during  this  one  well  digested 
and  fully  mastered,  having  had  some  practice  and  experience  also 
in  the  careful  and  critical  study  of  the  word  of  God,  and  ready  to 
enter  with  zeal  and  eagerness  upon  the  proper  study  of  systematic 
theology. 

I  cannot  conclude  without  trying  again  to  impress  upon  you  two 
practical  considerations — first,  that  you  have  other  matters  to 
attend  to  besides  the  prosecution  of  your  studies,  and  these  too 


SELF-EXAM  IN  A  TlON,  6  2  3 

still  more  important  than  extending  your  knowledge  of  theology, 
though  concurrent  with  and  auxiliary  to  it ;  and  second,  that  for  the 
attainment  of  these  objects,  as  well  as  for  the  successful  prosecution 
of  your  studies,  you  are  entirely  dependent  upon  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  more  important  matters  to  which  I  refer  are 
searching  and  trying  your  ways  to  ascertain  your  true  character  and 
motives,  and  growing  in  grace.  You  ought  to  know  the  motives  by 
which  you  are  really  animated  in  aspiring  to  the  office  of  the  ministry, 
and  in  prosecuting  your  theological  studies  with  that  view ;  and  espe¬ 
cially  you  ought  to  know  whether  you  are  influenced  by  a  real  desire 
to  promote  the  glory  of  God,  the  honour  of  Christ,  and  the  salvation 
of  your  fellow-men.  Sin  is  deceitful,  the  heart  of  man  is  deceitful 
above  all  things.  There  is,  therefore,  considerable  danger  that  you 
may  be  mistaken  about  the  motives  by  which  you  are  really 
animated.  You  have,  perhaps,  not  devoted  much  time  to  medita¬ 
tion  and  self-examination  during  the  business  and  bustle  of  the 
session,  and  yet  it  has  probably  afforded  materials  for  these 
exercises  which  may  still  be  turned  to  good  account.  You  have 
been  placed  in  somewhat  new  circumstances,  and  have  been  engaged 
in  somewhat  new  occupations,  and  the  spirit  which  may  have 
been  in  consequence  manifested,  the  feelings  which  may  have  been 
thus  excited,  may,  when  subjected  to  a  reflex  process  of  examina¬ 
tion,  contribute  to  throw  some  light  upon  your  actual  character  and 
motives.  You  should  consider  whether  you  have  been  taking  that 
deep  interest  in  your  studies  that  might  have  been  expected, 
whether  you  have  been  carrying  them  on  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
which  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom,  and  under  a  deep  sense  of  your 
responsibility  to  him  ;  whether  you  have  been  cherishing  a  due 
sense  of  your  dependence  upon  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
have  been  habitually  and  earnestly  seeking  his  guidance  and 
direction.  These  and  similar  questions  afford  suitable  topics  for 
self-examination  which  might  now  be  prosecuted  with  advantage, 
and  the  prosecution  of  which  might  give  you  some  insight  into  the 
real  state  of  your  hearts.  And  though  not  convinced  that  this 
state  of  mind  and  feeling,  which  your  profession,  your  occupations, 
and  your  objects  plainly  demanded,  was  altogether  wanting,  you 
could  scarcely  fail  to  see  from  such  an  investigation,  that  it 
was  still  but  very  imperfectly  developed,  and  that  you  still  greatly 
need  to  be  growing  in  grace.  You  ought  to  feel  that  you  still  need 


624 


FIFTY-FIRST  LECTURF. 


to  be  impressed  with  a  much  deeper  sense  of  your  obligations 
to  Him  that  died  for  you,  and  that  rose  again,  and  to  live  much 
more  fully  not  unto  yourselves  but  unto  him.  You  should  be 
aware  that  you  are  called  upon  to  walk  more  by  faith  and  less  by 
sight,  to  live  more  under  the  power  of  the  world  to  come  ;  and 
that  you  are  bound  to  labour  more  than  you  have  hitherto  done 
for  the  attainment  of  these  results,  and  especially  to  take  care 
that  your  eye  be  single,  that  thus  your  whole  body  may  be  full 
of  light.  And  finally,  never  forget  that,  for  the  attainment  of  all 
spiritual  objects,  all  objects  bearing  upon  the  promotion  of  Christ’s 
cause  and  your  own  eternal  welfare,  you  are  wholly'  dependent 
upon  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  God  giveth  to  every 
man  severally  as  he  will.  It  is  he  alone  who  can  fully  open  up  to 
you  the  state  of  your  own  hearts  and  motives,  who  can  carry  on 
the  work  which  he  may  have  begun  in  you,  and  enable  you  to 
make  any  real  progress  in  the  knowledge  of  divine  things  through 
the  word.  The  causes  of  your  remaining  ignorance  and  ungodli¬ 
ness,  of  the  imperfection  of  your  attainments  in  knowledge  and  in 
holiness,  may  in  one  most  important  aspect  of  them  be  summed 
up  in  this,  that  you  are  quenching  or  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  you  are  acting  in  a  way  fitted  to  provoke  him  to  take  his 
departure  from  you,  to  withhold  his  enlightening  and  sanctifying 
influences,  and  to  leave  you  to  yourselves.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  the  one  grand  comprehensive  rule  by  the  observance  of 
which  you  are  to  seek  to  promote  your  growth  in  knowledge  and 
in  grace  is,  that  you  cherish  such  a  state  of  mind,  and  pursue  such 
a  course  of  conduct,  as  the  word  of  God,  in  making  known  the 
principles  that  regulate  the  communication  of  the  Spirit,  shews 
to  be  best  fitted  to  contribute  to  your  enjoying  abundantly  and 
increasingly  his  gracious  presence,  and  his  enlightening  and 
sanctifying  operations.  Let  these  great  truths  then  become 
deeply  impressed  upon  your  mind,  and  let  them  exert  a  constant 
and  paramount  influence  upon  your  heart  and  conduct.  And 
remember  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  quenched  and  grieved, 
provoked  to  withhold  his  gracious  influences  from  you,  not  only 
by  what  you  may  regard  as  the  more  heinous  sins  in  thought, 
word,  and  deed,  but  also  by  shortcomings  which  you  may  be 
disposed  to  consider  as  more  venial  and  less  dangerous,  by  the 
indulgence  of  self-seeking  and  vainglory,  of  sloth  and  negligence. 


CONCLUSION. 


625 


by  the  want  of  a  due  sense  of  your  responsibility  for  the  improve¬ 
ment  of  all  your  privileges  and  opportunities,  or  of  due  diligence 
and  self-denial  in  the  actual  improvement  of  them.  And  you 
will  not  forget  that  we  have  the  clearest  scriptural  evidence  that 
he  is  grieved  by  our  withholding  from  him  the  honour  which  is 
due  to  him,  by  any  failure  to  realise  our  entire  dependence  upon 
him  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  his  agency,  and  more  especially 
by  our  neglecting  or  performing  amiss  that  great  duty,  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  which  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  bearing  more 
directly  and  immediately  than  anything  else  upon  the  enjoyment 
of  his  presence  and  his  saving  agency,  asking  that  we  may 
receive,  seeking  that  we  may  find,  knocking  that  the  door  may 
be  opened  to  us. 

Let  me  conclude  with  adopting  and  pressing  upon  you  the 
words  with  which  the  great  apostle — he  who,  next  to  Him  who 
was  his  Master  and  your  Master,  is  the  great  model  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian  minister — closed  his  first  epistle  to  the  church  at  Thes- 
salonica,  “  Pray  without  ceasing.  In  everything  give  thanks : 
for  this  is  the  will  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  concerning  you. 
Quench  not  the  Spirit.  Despise  not  prophesyings.  Prove  all 
things :  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.  Abstain  from  all  appear¬ 
ance  of  evil.  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly:  and 
I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit,  and  soul,  and  body,  be  preserved 
blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Faithful  is 
he  that  calleth  you,  who  also  will  do  it.  Brethren  pray  for  us. 
The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you.  Amen.” 


EDINBURGH  :  PRINTED  BV  JOHN  G  REIG  AND  SON. 


/ 


2 


I' 


J 


/ 


’a» 


V 


f 


r- « 


\ 


'C  , 


-e, 


-  • 


.*♦  * 


\ 


4 


I 


•4 


ft^ 


\ 


vL 


jr.:2isC4r&s 


fi 


•in 


j ' 


t- 


f 


v 


« 


*  w 


I 


2  01090  6396 


•j','  ♦ 


Date  Due 

S  , 

m 

.  ..  v'  1 

HAK  Wp 

Su 

APR^? 

i 

) 

f 

